Slashdot Mirror


Airport Scanners Can Store and Transmit Images

CNN is reporting on findings from a Freedom of Information request initiated by the Electronic Privacy Information Center that has revealed that, contrary to public statements by the Transportation Security Agency, full-body scanners can store and transmit images. "In the [FOIA] documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in 'test mode.' ... 'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate."

350 comments

  1. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    What's the big deal? I can think of better places to get porn.

    1. Re:... So? by starbugs · · Score: 1

      What's the big deal? I can think of better places to get porn.

      The only people who would get off on this is those who want to know that the person in the photo does not know that they actually have it. That puts them in the same category as peeping-toms and those who hide cameras in their shoes.

      Those who routinely watch porn would probably not be interested in fuzzy, BW pictures of mostly overweight Americans.

      And the idea that the pictures would 'NOT' be stored is crazy.

      If one of these terrorists succeeds in bringing on-board or even detonating a bomb, then those scans will be one of the first things the authorities will look at.

      Just wait for a supposedly destroyed hard-drive to show up on online.

    2. Re:... So? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Like I pointed out before (the last time the scanner issue came up), who is really gonna want to look at these images?
      "Oh yea, look at the cottage cheese thighs on this one!"
      "OMG! Quadruple Butt Dimples!"
      "Damn, the back end of that thong is just GONE!"

      Looking at people going through an American airport is like looking at people going through a Wal-Mart, not a lot of folks you would want to see naked...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:... So? by xmundt · · Score: 0, Troll

      What's the big deal? I can think of better places to get porn.

      Greetings and Salutations...
                Well, there are a couple of issues here that may have escaped your notice. Firstly, in all the discussions up to this point, EVERY governmental and company representative that discussed the capabilities of the scanners stated that the images were NOT stored in any long term or accessible fashion. They would be snapped, and, displayed on a screen for a person to look at, then, be destroyed.
                This was a deliberate lie, as these documents prove.
                Secondly, the government is being secretive about how this image transmission to long-term storage is activated. As a long-time analyst and programmer, I suspect that all that it takes is for some one to log into the machine as an administrator, and click a check-box. it has been my experience that "test modes" like this are built to be very easy to access, as the folks that do the testing hate to work any harder than required.
                Thirdly, while it may not matter to YOU that your privacy is being invaded with no great benefits or increase in security, it DOES matter to me and many others like me. More and more reports are coming out that indicate that these machines are more theater than an effective tool.
                Fourthly, as Pres. Obama noted in his address to the Nation a few nights ago, the only reason that the "Christmas Boob"...sorry...Bomber...was able to get onto the plane with his toys was because of a massive failure to analyze intelligence by the various Federal agencies...including Homeland Security, which was supposed to do EXACTLY that sort of analysis. I appreciated his fairly tough statements, but, frankly, I would have preferred that he be slightly less merciful and go ahead and fire some of the bureaucrats whose incompetence and malfeasance put Americans in jeopardy. That would have been a much clearer message that we have plenty of tools to find and halt terrorist plots now...and that the only thing that will truly deal with the problem is better intelligence gathering, analysis, and, examinations of why it is that so much of the world is pissed enough with America's policies that even well educated members of society are willing to blow them selves up to attempt to strike at us.
                Finally, have you noticed that much of the world press is referring to this as a "hysterical" reaction, and that not ony will it not do anything significant to increase America's safety, but, will likely have the effect of causing fewer and fewer world citizens to visit the country for business purposes, or vacations?
                Pleasant dreams
                Dave Mundt

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
    4. Re:... So? by sirlark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I appreciated his fairly tough statements, but, frankly, I would have preferred that he be slightly less merciful and go ahead and fire some of the bureaucrats whose incompetence and malfeasance put Americans in jeopardy. That would have been a much clearer message that we have plenty of tools to find and halt terrorist plots now...and that the only thing that will truly deal with the problem is better intelligence gathering, analysis, and, examinations of why it is that so much of the world is pissed enough with America's policies that even well educated members of society are willing to blow them selves up to attempt to strike at us.

      In answer to your question as to why the world gets pissed off at Americans, consider the concept that there were probably some non-Americans on that flight. but clearly it doesn't matter if they were in danger, because Americans were in danger and that's way more important. The Christmas bomber attempted to commit a deplorable crime and put the lives of many PEOPLE in danger. Their nationality makes very little difference to their survival rate I'm sure, but then I am not a statistician.

      To answer the grand-parent, your health insurance companies would LOVE to get their hands on your scans, especially without your knowledge. Here is a full body scan taken of you that you yourself do not get to see. I honestly don't know whether the images we see online are mock ups of what would be seen or actual images from the machines, but it seems the machines can not only see through clothes but into the body as well, certainly some of these images show skeletal structure. Are they high enough in resolution to detect large tumors? Small ones? We, the public, don't have enough details for us to make an informed decision. I for one am against any body scan where I don't have control over the results, including the right to review and destroy.

    5. Re:... So? by foobsr · · Score: 1

      You forgot considering that 'they', stupid as they are, will probably extract some nonsense characteristics from the pictures that will go into 'profiling for risk assessment'.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    6. Re:... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your both posting ridiculous statements. The scanners would have caught the Christmas Bomber, so claiming they don't work is rather funny. Secondly, would you prefer they instruct your local TSA agents as to requirements to put the machines into Test Mode? Did you think any of your statements through?

      To the second poster, the scanners only scan surfaces, meaning they can't see your insides as they are currently designed, meaning they would be useless to insurance companies. I don't even know what the anti-american rant was about, as the idiot above you certainly doesn't represent Americans. Most Americans are probably just like you, friendly and caring.

      Now get off my lawn

    7. Re:... So? by baubo · · Score: 1

      Isn't this scanner run by a branch of the same agency that arrests people for having cartoons of naked children on their computers? Seriously, they're going to let adults scan children? As if the jails aren't full enough. I'm just shakin' my head here

  2. No duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The picture they show in every article about the things must have come from somewhere.

    1. Re:No duh by skylerweaver · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for www.celebrityairportscannerpics.com

      I mean, they all travel sometime ;)

    2. Re:No duh by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      That could end up like that guy who sold "celebrity" poo on eBay. Sure, they say it's a picture of Jessica Alba in a terahertz wave machine, but really it's just some random guy's crap in a plastic bag. You know?

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    3. Re:No duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I couldn't care less if people want to scan me with this thing. About all you can tell is, "that person is skinny" or "that person is fat" or "that person is about normal". Nothing that anyone should really worry about.

    4. Re:No duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

    5. Re:No duh by linhares · · Score: 1

      Listen here you misinformation spreaders. I worked in this during the testing stage and can attest that we at the TSA are completely professional in what regards to privacy and dignity of travelers.

    6. Re:No duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on how well the blurring works, they can also tell "that woman sports a penis" or "that man doesn't". Still, not much more information than a passport would contain anyways.

    7. Re:No duh by statusbar · · Score: 1

      This is good news for http://www.millimeterwaveporn.com/ - Perhaps someone can contribute some anonymous scans of interesting people!

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    8. Re:No duh by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      Um.... not so much. On some of the photos, you can clearly tell that the female vict\\\\staffer has shaved her pussy. And these are very low-res images; I guarantee that if they can't make out faces, that's the ONLY thing they can't see.... http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2010/Q1/mail604.html#Friday

    9. Re:No duh by JoshDD · · Score: 1

      So does male or female security anal probe the woman with the penis?

    10. Re:No duh by GumphMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action. Further, they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief (accident or deliberate). Can you imagine the "scandal" if a plane goes down, it's suspicious, and the investigating body does not have this imagery?

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    11. Re:No duh by kencf0618 · · Score: 1

      And wouldn't the imagery be in the public domain, given that it's produced by a federal employee in the course of his or her duties?

    12. Re:No duh by laron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That looks 'shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels...
      Seriously, unless someone can give a source for this image, I will assume that it is just a negative of a conventional photo. I don't think body scanners do this light/shadows stuff at all. And it would be more convincing, if the model was in the same pose for the clothed and nude pictures.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    13. Re:No duh by Chatsubo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At the end of the day, it's pretty easy to just whip out a camera-phone (these days this translates to "every cellphone"), and take a picture of the screen.

      --
      > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
    14. Re:No duh by bdraschk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These pictures are taken from BILD.de, a magazine (won't call it newspaper here), comparable to the SUN. Source: http://www.bildblog.de/14866/kehraus-2009/ (sorry, German only).

      Basically, they've taken pictures from a CD of various images, among them "50 images of a naked woman", inverted them and added some images of weapons.

      Totally false and no true representation of actual images, these should not be used for arguing against nudie-scanners.

    15. Re:No duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and.. aren't those body scanners giving you CANCER?

    16. Re:No duh by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action.

      That is a good point, except that as things stand right now, there is no legal requirement to present any evidence that a person has failed this kind of screening. This imaging system alone would not be used to determine guilt or innocence; rather it would be used to identify which individuals may be carrying something they shouldn't, and should be detained for in depth screening.

      I work on a program to develop security screening technologies. The TSA, and other organizations, have made it a design requirement (and I mean that in the technical way) that screening technologies be completely anonymous, and not record any information about a person once they have left screening.

    17. Re:No duh by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Test Picture of Subject A...

    18. Re:No duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, those are modeling reference photos with the gun/belt added in. I have seen the original photos in my company's archives. If I remember right they are from 3d.sk

    19. Re:No duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, the original images are (I believe) from 3d.sk, they are supposed to be used for modeling reference. The belt and gun have been added in.

    20. Re:No duh by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Further, they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief (accident or deliberate). Can you imagine the "scandal" if a plane goes down, it's suspicious, and the investigating body does not have this imagery?

      How does the imagery help? You don't know who took the putative explosives, guns, or whatever through security and into the departure lounge.

      I'm fed up with Abdul and Achmed getting the stick, so in today's scenario the two 'A's are going to be innocent passers-by, and the real terrorists are Jean-Paul and Francoise of the Free Qubequois. JP is booked onto one flight and carries half the explosives through security, following Achmed-the-innocent. The amount of explosives are calibrated to not trigger the detector (that's another issue). Later, F follows Abdul-the-guiltfree through a different security gate, booked onto a different plane and carrying the other parts of the bomb. JP and F then meet in the toilets (the old briefcase protruding-under-the-cubicle-door language) and join the several parts together. They draw lots and head off. Later, JP watches as Abdul-the-guiltfree is wrestled to the ground by security staff because of his suspected association with the probable bomber (Achmed) thought to have brought down F's flight.

      Why do you think that the person who takes the bomb onto the plane is the person who carries the bomb through security? If bomb-builders are a limiting resource in your organisation, then you'll need to conserve them by sacrificing mules.
      If you're sufficiently sophisticated to build a bomb, you're probably sufficiently sophisticated to evade simplistic security. Or, if you just want to create mayhem, you detonate your bomb once you see the worried look on the scanner-operator's face. (If you don't see that look, then you board your plane and add several hundred thousand tonne-kilometres-per-second-squared of kinetic energy to the effect of your bomb. Same general effect, just different details.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    21. Re:No duh by Meski · · Score: 1

      full-body scanners can store and transmit images.

      I'm waiting for them to store and transmit hardcopy versions of us.

    22. Re:No duh by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that the person who takes the bomb onto the plane is the person who carries the bomb through security?

      I don't, and I didn't say that either.

      How does the imagery help? You don't know who took the putative explosives, guns, or whatever through security and into the departure lounge.

      Perhaps, as you say, the unwanted device is carried in by a third party or parties, assembled and ferried by another onto the aircraft. So what? As soon as the aircraft incident becomes suspicious, and hence a criminal investigation, the FBI/Australian/ Federal Police/Met/whoever is sure as hell going to want to work out how it got air-side. They are going to want every piece of information they can get to rule people in or out from the affected flight, and any other within a day or two. Unlike the scope dope, they have the luxury to pick over the imagery with a fine tooth comb, an intelligent eye, and lower time constraints, and therefore will be less likely to miss something. Of course, if the imagery is not kept then there will be the predictable OMG uproar about "inadequate security", "incompetent police" etc. and usual political knee jerk reactions to follow.

      Another approach is to assemble a device in terminal over an extended period. However, beyond a few days the likelihood of device being secreted in the terminal air-side and remaining undiscovered during routine security, cleaner and dog sweeps diminishes. Should such a device be found (or detonate) in the terminal then the law enforcement/sheeple reaction will be similar.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  3. amusing by kharchenko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

    1. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd be more concerned about the explosives getting through the scanners if I was actually afraid of getting blown up in a plane (or having an exploding plane fall on my head). Even if we'd had a few more successful attempts at pulling that off, I still wouldn't be afraid. You are STILL far more likely to get in an accident in your car on the way to the airport than having a terrorist strike your plane. On the other hand, EVERYONE has to deal with all these layers of asinine security.

    2. Re:amusing by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm concerned about both. I'm not ashamed of my body but that doesn't mean I want a complete stranger looking at a picture of me naked, no matter how fuzzy.

    3. Re:amusing by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Informative
    4. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

      It isn't that fuzzy. I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia. These scanners won't last long. I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.

      As far as chemical scanners are concerned, I don't really care. What scares me is driving on the road because I know that the odds are I'm going to get creamed by some dumbass tailgating in his SUV or t-boning me like this cunt on a cell phone did to my wife.

      Nope, terrorism isn't a worry of mine - there are about a thousand more things that will take me out way before terrorism. Then again, I'm not a typical American.

    5. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not a fuzzy picture. It shows all dense objects in acute detail projected on large screens.

    6. Re:amusing by santax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not the fact that someone sees me naked, it's about the fact that I want my damn privacy. I have yet to see the first terrorist ask me to strip naked. Yet apparently when the first goverment-official tells me he wants to have a look at my dick that I have to comply! One thing is sure. I have lost 0% safety and privacy to terrorist. But I lost 100% safety and privacy to goverments the last 20 years. And I bet this goes for 99.9% of the people in the western world. It has to stop you know...

    7. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "fuzzy resemblance" of a body has little to do with anything. People who would just as soon walk naked on the beach have serious concerns about what amounts to no less than a strip search with not even so much as reasonable suspicion.

      This is the most invasive government search, justified by less than the smallest legally acceptable standard of criminal suspicion. The reason strip searches are so narrowly confined has less to do with dignity or moral discomfort at being handled by a police officer than with the incredible invasiveness of the procedure. There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."

      The government simply should not be empowered to demand this of its citizens with no basis whatsoever. Without these protections, what is the point of having gradations in police voluntary contact vs. detention vs. arrest? Why limit searches based only on reasonable suspicion to immediate surroundings and officer safety searches?

      If some sub-police TSA agent can give you a digital strip search merely for wanting to fly from Chicago to New York, then there's nothing stopping them from rifling through your shopping bags in your locked trunk when you roll through a stop sign; there's nothing to stop them from a "harmless" invasion into your hard drive because there's an infinitesimal possibility there might be some terrorist information in there.

      The line has been crossed with warrantless wiretapping, suspicionless searches, and generally unnecessary, unproductive, and invasive government behavior. If naked pictures of air travelers is the straw that breaks the camel's back, so be it. At least they've finally noticed that something's rotten in the state of wherever-you-are.

    8. Re:amusing by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

      A large part of our objection is due to that second part exactly: it's TSA, operator error and general incompetence will likely preclude it actually being effective. It would be objectionable enough even if it would actually increase our safety, but it's not going to do that.

      What it's going to be used for primarily is to catch more drug smugglers. I don't give a flying fuck about that goal, I definitely am not willing to sacrifice more privacy, the waste of all that taxpayer money, or the hassle of even longer lines. No.

      In fact I think it's more likely that this will be counterproductive by making longer lines. Fairly often, the lines to go through the scanners have more people than are actually on a plane. That bombers aren't targeting those lines is a real testament to how stupid TSA and terrorists are, it's only a matter of time before they realize this. I'd prefer security checkpoints be faster so fewer people are in the real danger zone when they do.

    9. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So then you will never get an x-ray or a mammogram, which are transmitted over a network and by law are stored for years.

    10. Re:amusing by dscaife · · Score: 1

      There is a line that I draw somewhere between privacy and doing what's necessary in the interests of security, and this solution is on the wrong side of that line by a mile. If their security strategy requires rendering my body sans clothing, they aren't doing their job properly.

    11. Re:amusing by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the most invasive government search

      Well, the 2nd most. The most invasive search requires rubber gloves.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:amusing by $beirdo · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting this, you are 100% right on the money.

    13. Re:amusing by Ziekheid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly! I'm so sick and tired of people saying "if you have nothing to hide why whine?" or "you must have a small penis if you're so concerned with body scanners".
      It's just none of their damn business and we've given the terrorists EXACTLY what they wanted, mass paranoia and giving up our freedoms for "the war on terrorism".

      Add to this the fact that in a moment of hysteria the airport that let the Nigerian through (Schiphol) ordered 60 of the WRONG bodyscanners which would not be able to detect the kind of "bomb" the Nigerian was carying http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/366577/Verkeerde-bodyscanners-besteld.html (source in Dutch, since Schiphol is in the Netherlands).
      They are ordering the same bodyscanners in the US but possibly with the addition of x-ray scanners that are able to find anal insertions, I'm guessing these will only be used in case of doubt but are likely to be bad for your health (I have no idea to what extend).

      Police in the Netherlands is already talking, and set aside money for research, about a mobile bodyscanner.
      I'm wondering what the next step will be, body scanners before I enter the bus or train?
      Body scanners when I enter the university?

    14. Re:amusing by xmundt · · Score: 1

      Greetings and Salutations...
                this concept of privacy is addressed in another posting to /....and I will read it later. In any case, I am right with you, in that I value my privacy and do not like having ANYONE staring over my shoulder all the time. I am older than dirt, so I recall that the only class of people that were under 24/7 observation were high-security prisoners, and, frankly, I have no desire to join (or be dragged into) that class.

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
    15. Re:amusing by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

      Considering we've seen WAY more cases of TSA malfeasance than we have seen terrorist attacks, is it really so surprising?

      Just you watch - we'll see a new kind of pr0n from the pervs who brought us "up-skirt" - scanner pr0n.

      Furthermore, these machines are obsolete before they are even deployed - they only see through clothing, not through the body and we've already had one case of an "ass bomber" in Abdullah Hassan Taleh al-Asiri this past september in Saudi Arabia. And while he mostly succeeding in killing only himself with little harm to others, that's because he detonated it in his ass. Even the underwear bomber spent 20 minutes in the lavatory getting ready - nothing to stop someone from taking the bomb out of their ass before detonating it on a plane. Get three or four of these guys on a plane and that's lot of bomb material sailing right past the latest billion dollars boondoggle.

      Personally, I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb, detonators in the balls of course. The TSA will just let him pass as they will be shocked and awed by the size of his tool, not realizing who he's really going to use that tool to fuck over.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    16. Re:amusing by sacdelta · · Score: 1

      It's more likely that they will recreate the elite program to allow celebrities and politicians to bypass the scanners.

      I'm much more concerned that they do checks to make sure the people operating the machines aren't pedophiles.

      --

      Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.

    17. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, "dense objects" includes a man's penis and scrotum, and a woman's labia and breasts.

    18. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb, detonators in the balls of course. The TSA will just let him pass as they will be shocked and awed by the size of his tool, not realizing who he's really going to use that tool to fuck over.

      And in response, the TSA will mandate fluffers for all male passengers.
      If you can't get it up to prove its a real, then you can't fly...

    19. Re:amusing by saaaammmmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who would have guess that those child porn laws would be good for something?

    20. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know when I hear about all this airport security I think back to some of the incidents here such as when the confused irate and mentally disturbed young men attacked children in our colleges. None of these billions in extra security measures had any impact on this, and the more I read these things the more I wonder how effective they will be at preventing these types of attacks. But I don't have to wonder much as I know the answer is they won't. Think about what happened in India, where groups of armed men hit the city and randomly killed people. How long are we away from something like that happening here in our homeland? Are we really naive enough to think that we are somehow outsmarting the terrorists and not understanding that if they really wanted to, how easily they could attack a nightclub like in Israel, or some other place full of innocents?

      Personally I think our paranoia in the government is well warranted. When a government constantly promises things it can't deliver on, or does things that it says are safe, but later we find out are neither safe nor do they provide the security that was promised, mistrust becomes common. Besides, after hearing stories of young children in juvenile facilities - that are supposed to be protected - being abused, how many of us truly believe abuses of millions of naked images including those of youth will not occur? What about the stories of how all this security is supposed to protect us when it doesn't?

      The more I read these things the more I'm worried, but not in the scared lets give away every ounce of freedom for protection worried, but more of the how much longer are we going to persist with policies that assist in the creation of more desperate people who would rather die in a violent explosion, than live in our colonies.

      I hope nobody takes my comments out of context. I understand how difficult some of these decisions are and I know there can be no easy answer. However, I am praying that people pay more attention to these things and our elected officials make sure that these investments are really investments to provide security for us and our children and not for their financial interests.

    21. Re:amusing by biryokumaru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno, the rate we're going people won't realize they're prisoners until they've put the bars up in their own homes.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    22. Re:amusing by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."

      I agree with you generally, but I think there is still another side to this whole thing, which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies. Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while. There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason. Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.

      So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere. I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports. If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no. If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree. When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine). Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport. If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me. I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.

      So looking at it that way, I can't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far. I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one, then it probably is too far. However, I think I wouldn't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off. Maybe that's just a mental defect on my part.

    23. Re:amusing by BitHive · · Score: 1

      As long as we can keep our guns in it, said house would be a castle no matter how many bars we have to put up to keep the social decay out.

    24. Re:amusing by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Funny

      As I get older my body is naturally getting fuzzier. If the scanner adds more fuzz the TSA will simply view me as a giant hairball.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    25. Re:amusing by linhares · · Score: 4, Insightful
      who needs to bring a bomb through these machines anyway?

      "We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening.

      Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8438355.stm

    26. Re:amusing by linhares · · Score: 1
      "Are you a pedophile son?"

      "No sir, no way."

      "Ok then please go on"

    27. Re:amusing by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't cutting ourselves off from society definitively be social decay?

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    28. Re:amusing by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think you just solved TSA's image problem with the slashdot crowd.

    29. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not the point, the point is that they deliberately lied to the public about the machine not being able to store images, they got caught and now they are (doubtless) lying again when they say there is "no way" to put the machine into test mode outside of TSA "test centers".

    30. Re:amusing by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

      Do drug smugglers use airline smuggling anymore? I presumed the majority was moved in larger quantities across the border these days.

    31. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Body scanners when I enter the university?

      For fuck's sake YES! That would be a dream job for collecting college girl porn!!! I'm so glad this is the home of the brave!

    32. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone can opt for a pat down. I will not go through any x-ray.. they may cause cancer. Pat me down.

      I thought the stimulus package had a "buy American" clause. These machines are made in two places... California... but they use Chinese guts.. the most expensive parts of the $100,000 machines... the other mfg is overseas. If we spend stimulus money overseas.. how will it stimulate us?

    33. Re:amusing by peragrin · · Score: 1

      How do you know that hasn't already been done? Sony used to sell a video camera with low light enhancement that saw through light weight clothes. you just never know what technology is already on the market can do.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    34. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns are a tool that your government uses to make you believe you still have your freedom. do you honestly think you could overthrow your government with your weenie little handgun, with the amount the government spends on it's military each year? if so, you are very feeble minded (but we already knew that from your belief that guns are proof that you're free)

    35. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they have every right to do it. When you buy a plane ticket, you consent to those security measures. If you don't want to be searched, don't travel by plane, or travel on a private plane. ... and no, it's not a strip search. Have you even seen the pictures that come up on these? They're far less detailed than even medical x-rays, which show pretty much nothing. These are actually very reasonable scans, and to compare them to warrentless wiretapping is, quite frankly, moronic.

    36. Re:amusing by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      You people see a problem, I see a marketing opportunity: Lead-Lined Underwear!

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    37. Re:amusing by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      A mammogram is proven to help, and is a decidedly un-sexy picture as compared to a full-body nude. Can't really say the same for these pictures.

    38. Re:amusing by idontgno · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Several folks are worried it might come to that.

      And even after that, what happens when the bomb is surgically implanted? Penetrating x-rays and lots of explaining about medical implants? "Yes, officer, I really do have two artificial hips and a pacemaker. That's not a couple of sticks of dynamite and a trigger."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    39. Re:amusing by blee37 · · Score: 1

      As other people have pointed out any sort of computer device must store and send data. (1) Any modern computer will have a framebuffer that stores the image temporarily. (2) The signal has to be sent from the scanners to the display, so someone could open the machine and could redirect the signal to go somewhere else like a network.

      It makes more sense to ask how easy it is to store and send data. There isn't enough information to determine this.

      "The official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate."

      It would make a big difference whether the device has a hard drive or can write to portable media like a flash drive or writable CD. It would also make a big difference whether the device has the hardware to connect to networks (e.g. a NIC). We might ask similar questions about the device's software.

      Without knowing the answer to those questions, it is hard to say whether the device is posing any danger in excess of that which is unavoidable by nature of its being a computer.

      Final thought: It might be more sensible to secure the devices by relying on encryption rather than trying to preventing "storage" and "transmission." For example, one could encrypt the signal from the scanners as it was passed to the display, store the encrypted bits in the framebuffer, and only decipher the signal as it was passed to the display. The encryption mechanism would need to be a blackbox hardware device so the keys couldn't be snooped.

    40. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similar technology can be used to look through walls. Time to start working on metal mesh wallpaper.

    41. Re:amusing by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Have fun locked up in your "castle".

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    42. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      a lower expectation of privacy

      You motherfucking sheep's-ass-licker -- I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE a lower expectation of privacy. It's been forcibly been removed from me.

    43. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One night working one of these machines, and you won't need to ask how to get stimulation!

      PRO TIP: Look away when the fatties go through. Just sayin'...

    44. Re:amusing by russ1337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So then you will never get an x-ray or a mammogram, which are transmitted over a network and by law are stored for years.

      Which are medical procedures. Same as gynecological and rectal examinations. All of which I reserve for someone who's graduated Med school.... not some $2 an hour night-club qualified security guard.

    45. Re:amusing by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It isn't that fuzzy. I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia. These scanners won't last long. I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.

      That is why i'm going to make sure I 'chub up' before going through one...

    46. Re:amusing by ignavus · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is the most invasive government search

      Well, the 2nd most. The most invasive search requires rubber gloves.

      If only they would check prostates while they were at it, it would at least be medically worthwhile.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    47. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I wonder if there is any law against going to the airport with half a pound of herbs strapped to my backside. That would confound the drug enforcers.

      Me: "Hey, hands off bro, I'm working for the Colonel!"
      TSA: "Wha?"
      Me: "Show some respect. These are THE 11 herbs and spices"

      At least I'll have a funny story to tell in the secret prison.

    48. Re:amusing by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      Yep. What you said. If they have these scanners at the airport the next time I fly, I want to make sure to ask for a pat-down rather than a scan, which I understand they're supposed to allow you to do according to the current rules. Can any slashdotters report on practical experiences at airports that use these things? Is there some kind of clear signage that lets you know that this is one of the airports that uses them, and that the door-frame you're about to step through is it? If enough people ask for the pat-down, it could actually be a very effective form of civil disobedience. The system is set up under the assumption that only a tiny number of passengers will ask for one.

    49. Re:amusing by rikkards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A mammogram is proven to help
      Citation needed.
      There is more and more studies showing that unless you are high risk, the odds of a mammogram helping is pretty even with not getting one:
      http://medicalconsumers.org/2005/09/01/breast-cancer-awareness-month-read-this-before-you-have-a-mammogram/
      http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=breast-cancer-screening-policy
      On a similar (yet offtopic subject), same can be said with pap smears, it is coming to light that only reason why doctors push their patients to have them annually is basically something they can bill for. HPV (an STD) is the main cause of cervical cancer and more people a year die from melanoma than cervical cancer (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/500809web.pdf) yet you don't see doctors pushing for moles to be removed. Prostate cancer still kills more people but yet men are not expected to bend over on a yearly basis unless they are high risk. Why is that? There is also suspicion that some of the abnormal cells found in pap smears may be actually caused by the continuous scrapings that women are undergoing rather than cervical cancer thus women undergoing unecessary surgery.

      This website in general has been most enlightening:
      http://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/

    50. Re:amusing by LeperPuppet · · Score: 1

      Large scale cartels have too much product to make air transport via drug mules worthwhile. Smaller operations have less to move and less resources to arrange transportation, leaving them mostly reliant upon mules and international postage.

    51. Re:amusing by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > I'm much more concerned that they do checks to make sure the people operating the machines aren't pedophiles.

      Why? If the person viewing the images thinks they're hot or not does not affect anyone. Besides, 'they' (pedophiles) could visit a nudist beach for a 'high-res' experience. They might even be thinking naughty thoughts! Won't someone think of the children?

      Of course if the devices had a USB interface so you could save your favorite pics to your flash drive, you might have a point.

    52. Re:amusing by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Or worse, what about when they want to shove their fingers up your ass? The whole thing has always been a parade of lunacy.

    53. Re:amusing by spiralpath · · Score: 1

      Dallas - Ft. Worth Airport (DFW) uses these. I have been offered the "opportunity" to go through one, but declined and chose a pat-down instead. The official complied readily and there was no problem. They did try to convince me that there wasn't harmful radiation emitting from the device, and that I had nothing to worry about. Of course, my worries weren't about radiation.

      The device is obviously a full-body scanner; it wasn't something I would have accidentally stumbled into. I live in Dallas so I was aware that they were installing them in the airport, but it was pretty clear when I got to the machine what it was.

    54. Re:amusing by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb, detonators in the balls of course. The TSA will just let him pass as they will be shocked and awed by the size of his tool, not realizing who he's really going to use that tool to fuck over.

      As hilarious as that would be, I highly doubt we will ever see something like that.
      I've heard that suicide bombers often wrap their genitals in protective cloth, so their junk will be spared from the blast. It has to be in working order for the 72 virgins.
      (if that seems unreasonably stupid (a disembodies schlong floating around in the afterlife), just remember, they are blowing themselves up for a fairy tale, so reason doesn't seam to really come into play here)

      Might be easier to just look for people with obvious signs of stuffing their crotch with cloth.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    55. Re:amusing by Trillian_1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly! I'm so sick and tired of people saying "if you have nothing to hide why whine?" or "you must have a small penis if you're so concerned with body scanners".

      Without being sarcastic, some of us are concerned about having their small penis put up for display. This will inevitably be TMI, but I know I'm not the only trans woman who reads Slashdot, and presenting and being perceived as a woman but smuggling a dick through security runs the risk of harassment (if you're lucky) and arrest/sexual assault/murder (if you're not).

      I'm all for safe air travel, but I can see a million ways to abuse this technology, and use it to harass and humiliate people who aren't terrorists for every one way it can be used to "fight terrorism."

    56. Re:amusing by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but it seems like yes since nearly every person on "Locked Up Abroad" was caught airline smuggling.

    57. Re:amusing by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      But that one is not done to everybody... YET.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    58. Re:amusing by tftp · · Score: 1

      Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb

      There is no need to go that far. Slashdotters don't know it, of course, but there is a special type of people called "women." They are very well equipped for concealed transportation of a bomb material, and they can easily carry more than even a surgically augmented man can.

    59. Re:amusing by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      And while he mostly succeeding in killing only himself with little harm to others, that's because he detonated it in his ass.

      So if we want to make a bomb-proof plane, we should build it out of ass, because ass has magical bomb-muffling properties?

      And yes, I'm being an ass here! :D

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    60. Re:amusing by vaniderstine · · Score: 1

      Read "Saturn's Race" by Larry Niven. One of the characters has an implanted bomb... Sorry sir, we're going to have to break your leg to prove it isn't a bomb.

      --
      I "AM" ring-0.
    61. Re:amusing by mogness · · Score: 0, Troll

      Guys, you're missing a fundamental point here- The right to fly on an airplane is not right which was granted by your government. It's not something we all should expect. You have other options- drive where you need to go, take a cruise, or get your own plane...

      --
      that's teh shizzle bizzle
    62. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, you're missing a fundamental point here- The right to fly on an airplane is not right which was granted by your government. It's not something we all should expect.

      No, YOU are missing the point that I have a fundamental right to do business with transportation companies and travel wherever I wish in the country, unmolested.

      The airlines are suffering financially and passengers suffering indignities due to the incompetence of overbearing "security" measures mandated by the government to "keep us safe."

      Also, rights are not something "granted" by the government. They are inherent, meaning all people have them naturall, and it is the government's job to guarantee them. The country was founded on that principle. You'll notice that "safety" is not among the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Maybe the founders knew that it was impossible on its face to guarantee such a thing.

    63. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Western Australia, particularly at certain times of the year, the police already stop cars and people randomly and submit them to exactly these kinds of violations of their freedom. In the Southwest, in november they even "steal" alchohol from vehicles of people who are legally allowed to drink, just because a bunch of hooligan kids from Perth decide to have their end of year parties in the SW, everyone who lives their is subjected to random (often invasive) searches and police bullying and theft.

      They keep demanding more rights and getting them. These days they are nothing more than thugs and bullies in uniform. They spend most of their time harassing innocent people going about their ordinary lives and often are unavailable to do their "real" job, because they are too busy harassing drivers and kids roaming the streets. Case in point, last november, my 14 year old son went missing overnight and i was told the police were "too Busy" to help me find him, unless I could prove his life was in danger, but the same night I saw 2 police cars cruising around, randomly harassing road users and pedestrians (granted it was during schoolies week, but a missing child to me seems far more of a priority than picking up drunk schoolgirls, who are with friends and not endangering themselves or anyone else)??????

    64. Re:amusing by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And even after that, what happens when the bomb is surgically implanted?

      There's probably no need to resort to surgery even, someone could just swallow a number of small timed explosives. Hell, drug smugglers have been swallowing condoms full of cocaine for years, and it (usually) works for them...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    65. Re:amusing by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      I dunno, the rate we're going people won't realize they're prisoners until they've put the bars up in their own homes.

      Apparently you haven't been to any, significantly large inner-city. They're already doing it.

    66. Re:amusing by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      Guys, you're missing a fundamental point here- The right to fly on an airplane is not right which was granted by your government. It's not something we all should expect. You have other options- drive where you need to go, take a cruise, or get your own plane...

      Interestingly enough, the power to anal probe me when I try to fly is not a right granted to the government in the Constitution (speaking as an American). It would seem that whole little bit about "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." might be relevant. Maybe they granted that power further down past where I had to study in middle school though.


      I know, I know I'm a bad, dirty little karma whore, but the point still stands.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    67. Re:amusing by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Yes but TSA agents are more than happy to pull a female passenger for a full body cavity inspection.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    68. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere. I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports. If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no. If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree. When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine). Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport. If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me. I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.

      I'd agree with you, except for the fact that what is being asked of citizens has FAR surpassed reasonable measures for security. Every day people risk their lives far more than they do climbing into an airplane (yes, even before 9/11 and all this "security theater" was in place). It keeps getting worse, and, the question is, when does it stop? X-Rays of body parts? Invasive searches?

      What I also find interesting is how it's slowly breaking down. First, scanners, bags scanned. Easy-peasy. Then, 9/11. Bottles of a certain size. Carry-ons hand-inspected. Belts come off. Then, shoe bomber. Now our shoes come off (ARGH! I hate this, BTW). Then, things seemed to settle down again and a guy goes through with something in his pants. Now, people have to be screened by full body scanners. What's next? This decay is what is scary if you ask me. And, at the end of the day, how many people are TRULY scared of going down in a plane crash (other than people afraid of heights/flying in general)?! I would bet very few people even really think about it all that much. We just get to our destinations and go about life. If the government *REALLY* wanted to save lives, they would help people eat healthier (which might help some of our health problems), work to improve safety in cars, pull people over for texting and driving...all things that cause many more deaths than plan crashes.

    69. Re:amusing by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      I've heard that suicide bombers often wrap their genitals in protective cloth, so their junk will be spared from the blast. It has to be in working order for the 72 virgins.

      Not all terrorists are muslim you know...

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    70. Re:amusing by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      I would think you would be OK. The person looking at the full body scan sits in a different room, where they can't see you. So all they would see would be that you have a penis. Even if you have had breast implants or hormone therapy, it still probably won't be that interesting to them since they can't see past the skin layer. Unless you have anything strapped to your body, you won't even be stopped.

      Also, think of how many super-fat men they are going to be scanning every day who probably have smaller dicks and bigger (saggier) boobs than you. (I mean no offense.) I mean, some poor sap has to essentially look at naked people all day. And not good-looking naked people. All naked people!

      Personally, I think that would be the worse job ever. Because when I go to the airport, I don't want to see 99.9% of the people naked. Half of them make me sick with their clothes on.

      All that said, I am totally against this full-body scanning. I just don't think that you are any more fucked than the rest of us.

    71. Re:amusing by Travelsonic · · Score: 1
      . When you buy a plane ticket, you consent to those security measures

      If walking into a store doesn't give the owners probable cause to search you, as backed up by case law, walking into an airport and wanting to travel is not, IMO, probable cause to strip search,especially not by incompetent GOVERNMENT employees... I call bullshit on your premise. The TSA's influence is extending to bus and train too you know, and I'd like to se you try driving to Europe.

      Go blow it out your apathetic asshole, bub.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    72. Re:amusing by cyberworm · · Score: 1

      I've always been baffled that there hasn't been an attack BEFORE the machines. At certain times of day there are huge lines just to get in line for screening.

    73. Re:amusing by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb

      Oddly enough that is the kind of bomb that would be detected by this scanner, non-organic or dead object appear different to organic or living objects.

      Not that I agree with this kind of invasion of privacy mind you. It wont make air travel any safer, after all the most dangerous part of a flight is and for a long time has been the drive to the airport. Statistically there is a greater chance of me becoming part of Australia's road toll in the 30 minute drive to the international airport then me dying in an aircraft during the 16 hours of flights I'll be taking in the subsequent 3 weeks (note: including accidents, if we restrict this to terrorism the difference becomes ridiculous).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    74. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you. There are various situation in which we give up certain privacy, e.g., giving our Social Security number to get a credit card or be admitted to a hospital. Giving up my right to physical privacy from a bocy scan is something I would be willing to do to be able to get on a plane.

      It seems obvious that getting bombs onto planes is an objective that will not go away as long as there are terrorists. If having a body scan will diminish the possibility that I am boarding a plane with a bomber, that is a small bit of privacy for me to give up. (I do understand that it would be a bigger problem for some, such as transgendere people. Surely there would be an option of a pat-down.)

      I realize that statistically I am more likely to die in a car. But I drive a car with a high safety rating, use all the available safety devices, choose safe routes and times of day, drive well-rested (at least I try to), and drive safely. These all served me well when I hydroplaned at night on a freeway at 65 mph in a sudden gully-washer (you can guess what that means), went into the median, fish-tailed, and hit a guardrail at some speed--my ABS brakes were worthless in the mud. My car was totalled; my face abraded by the airbag, black-eyed, and bleeding from cuts (not gashes). When the EMTs got there and saw the crash, they took me out on a body board. Many hours and tests later, I left the hospital under my own power. Had my car been less well-engineered and had I not been using my seat-belt and headrest, I probably would not be writing this. I was driving a J30 Infiniti.

      I know what my safety precautions saved me from in a car accident that could have killed me. I am willing to take any precautions available to improve my chances in the air--such as having a body scan.

    75. Re:amusing by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the government *REALLY* wanted to save lives, they would help people eat healthier (which might help some of our health problems), work to improve safety in cars, pull people over for texting and driving...all things that cause many more deaths than plan crashes.

      I agree entirely. Heart disease and car accidents are a couple big killers, but if you put a tax on fatty foods or talk about increasing public transportation, then people start complaining about socialism and bemoaning their loss of freedom. On the other hand, if the government suspends habeas corpus, tortures prisoners, and conducts wiretaps and invasive searches without cause, everyone's fine with it because "we're fighting terrorists". It doesn't make any sense to me.

    76. Re:amusing by Facegarden · · Score: 2, Informative

      who needs to bring a bomb through these machines anyway?

      "We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening.

      Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8438355.stm

      to be fair, you're pulling that quote slightly out of context. The guy was trying to suggest that body scanners are not the best idea, and profiling people is better, so he was trying to discredit the scanners. He wasn't citing any research and that's not what the article is about. You're citing an unverified quote in the article about something else.

      More complete quote:

      Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, said scanners were not the only solution and profiling passengers was, in fact, the best way to prevent terrorist acts.
      "We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening. Bearing that in mind, we need to look at what people's intent is, not what they are carrying on their person."

      Still, he's the editor of some magazine, so he may know what he's talking about, but the BBC article doesn't go into it and its possible that the magazine only has 3 subscribers and one is his mom.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    77. Re:amusing by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      ...They are ordering the same bodyscanners in the US but possibly with the addition of x-ray scanners that are able to find anal insertions...

      Possibly? Wow, you mean some of these scanners could STILL be fooled by sticking things up your ass? That seems like the simplest fucking loophole. Not everyone would want to do that, but some people stick things up there for fun, so really if you're planning on dying for your god to kill some non-believers, it seems like that would be a no-brainer. Stick something up your ass, make it to heaven. If we're spending all this money, we had sure as hell be able to stop one of the simplest fucking tricks in the book!

      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    78. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, or you can load up a remote controlled speedboat with explosives and attack pretty much any port town. Or rent a room in your destination country, and spend a few days assembling a proper bomb from local ingredients, simply walk to the building you want levelled and go for it. Using planes is stupid, why are we forcing terrorists to explore the more effective options?

    79. Re:amusing by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.

      Lower doesn't mean nonexistent.

      I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports.

      That's fine, but I'm not a bag, nor is my laptop's hard drive.

      There's nothing wrong with some basic preventative scanning, but you don't get to order a strip search with absolutely zero suspicion. If there is something irregular about the purchase, some red flag in the computer, or some anomaly with a passenger's bag, by all means, it may be appropriate to pull them aside and pat them down or ask them if they'd consent to a body scan.

      No suspicion means no search. This is a principle that has stood for two centuries, first whittled away by the extremely lax standards at border crossings (but again, originally those had limits and required some irregularity to justify the extra processes). In the past twenty years, airport security has washed that away, now to the point of having no rights when traveling by air.

      I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.

      So in essence you're saying that they can do whatever they want in an airport, but not on the street? I wholeheartedly disagree.

      We are already subject to less privacy and more invasion at an airport. They haven't the right to demand more invasion with less suspicion. It will yield no better results.

      I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity

      It's not about dignity, as clearly illustrated above. It's about liberty and the right to be treated as innocent until presented with the appropriate level of suspicion for the alleged crime or offense.

      Law enforcement must have grounds to conduct a search. They already get to do a more thorough search without any suspicion than would ever be tolerated on the street. People should not have to submit to even more for no reason at all.

      There's no exigency, no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion. Enough is enough. We draw lines around these requirements and the various levels of search and seizure because each one is a greater and greater harm to privacy and liberty. A digital strip search revealing more than a cavity search could ever hope to is a whole new level, justified by nothing at all.

      It's not about dignity. Dignity is why these searches are currently conducted in small rooms near the security lines instead of at the metal detector. Yes, strip searches happen in airports right now. But you have to trigger special screening, and then do something to trigger a third level of suspicion, where they bring in real cops and conduct a strip search.

      These machines do away with those three levels and subject everyone to the same degree of search--something previously justified essentially only by observed criminal behavior. That with the arbitrary power to seize your computer, again with no suspicion whatsoever, even when those machines contain confidential and/or privileged information protected by law, including attorney/client communications and records, medical records, financial records and the like is something that cannot be justified and should not be tolerated.

      This is the single biggest affront to personal liberty of this generation, and it's going over with barely a hiccup because it's abstract and because people like you assume it's about dignity or vanity. Not consenting to strip searches on the street isn't about dignity or vanity. It's no different at an airport. They have strip search policies and laws already. They can use them. They don't need to extend that highest level of invasion to all travelers of all flights simply because they can do it digitally.

    80. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With bars in your home, would the prison be the inside or the outside?

    81. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport. If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me. I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.

      If there is a "Terrorist Attack" at some shopping mall in the Homeland don't you think that the government will implement safety/security/searches/scans there too?

    82. Re:amusing by lena_10326 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When being singled out and abused for being transsexual is institutionalized, you tend to get a bit nervous when technology is installed that would expose you as a transsexual to individuals with great power. Nearly every transsexual person has had bad experiences with police, clerks behind a counter, and those expecting your identification papers to fit within a narrow set of parameters. http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=8515744

      Also, a fat man with man boobs will not look the same on the image as a pre-op transwoman of normal weight. It will be very obvious who is transsexual with that scanner. Remember these scanners will be installed in airports around the world in countries having despicable records for abusing if not killing LGBT people.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    83. Re:amusing by mogness · · Score: 1

      so, you have an inherent right to travel on the airplane of your choice with no regard for the safety of other passengers? Just because it's inconvenient for you doesn't mean you have the right to put other passengers in jeopardy.

      --
      that's teh shizzle bizzle
    84. Re:amusing by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Get three or four of these guys on a plane and that's lot of bomb material sailing right past the latest billion dollars boondoggle.

      Sure, but stock prices of the scanner manufacturers are through the roof!

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    85. Re:amusing by mogness · · Score: 0, Troll

      Point well made, but I can't help but to lean towards the idea that you lose certain expectations of privacy when you fly. I mean, based on your logic here, the government shouldn't x-ray bags or run people through metal detectors either. I don't see those rights given to the government anywhere in the constitution. Hell, why shouldn't we all just be able to carry firearms while flying then? I mean, we do have the right to bear arms, right?

      --
      that's teh shizzle bizzle
    86. Re:amusing by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      ""Seriously, dude, this chicken tastes like ass."

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    87. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they'll just target banks or supermarkets or pubs - oh wait that's already happened.

    88. Re:amusing by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      You have other options- drive where you need to go, take a cruise, or get your own plane...

      What about international travel, do we just hop onto the nearest tramp steamer? And the slight fact that we're not all millionaires with private jets.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    89. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best bit - some people will actually pay for the privilege of putting the bars on their own windows, providing the product marketting is done right.

    90. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while.

      Yes, but that'd be because of the whole "charging towards the POTUS" part, not because of what he said. He'd just as well be he detained by the SS if he didn't shout anything, or even if he shouted "c'mere, sexy, and kiss me".

      Your argument about context is a problematic one, too, as it essentially boils down to "if it's done consistently/regularly/for a while, it ceases to be illegal": in other words, "might makes right".

      But you're attacking the problem from the wrong angle, anyway. You shouldn't attempt to justify why you don't like these scanners, and then conclude you don't have a right to not like them when you can't come up with a compelling reason; rather, you should ask the following things: 1) what are they supposed to do (e.g. "find bombs"); 2) are they effective for what they're supposed to do; 3) if yes, would being effective for what they're supposed to do make air travel safer; 4) if yes, would the increase in safety justify the costs (in terms of liberties, money etc.) associated with them.

      Put more succinctly, the DEFAULT should be "no new scanners", and if the government wants to have them, it's up to the government to provide a compelling reason why they should be installed. It's NOT "we'll install them until you convince us why we shouldn't" - that's basically "guilty until proven innocent" thinking.

    91. Re:amusing by Old+Grey+Beard · · Score: 1

      Of course if the devices had a USB interface so you could save your favorite pics to your flash drive, you might have a point.

      As noted above, a cell phone camera will soon become a TSA voyeur's constant companion.

      And of course, it is inevitable these machines will grow in sophistication and one day will be able to render faces and genitalia with far higher resolution than now shown to the public.

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it."
      - H. L. Mencken
    92. Re:amusing by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Actually, I live in the Bronx, and you only really see that kind of thing on the stores and schools.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    93. Re:amusing by Xacid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is probably the first realistic argument AGAINST full body scanners that has appealed to my sense of reason.

      Honestly - I didn't have an issue with the scanners. The only potential for abuse I saw was just seeing naked people all day and well...that doesn't bother me much. I'd rather someone see my dangly bits off in some other room than be patted down every damned time I go through an airport. To me THAT is more invasive. I honestly don't think it's the crisis that everyone's making it out to be for the most part - and I'm a pretty strong advocate for privacy otherwise. What I have to see with things that become privacy issues are *sound* potential abuses before I can really judge them to be problematic. Your argument is the first I've heard of where this can cause an immediate threat to someone's safety and livelihood - so thanks for pointing it out guys/gals.

    94. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this being /., anyone who's been here for a while has seen the goatse guy. The things that could be stuck up there.......

    95. Re:amusing by mikael · · Score: 1

      People were willing to pay to get copies of the personal medical records of celebrities. What would they be willing to pay to get the scanner images of those individuals?

      Former UCLA hospital worker who sold records of celebrities dies before sentencing

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    96. Re:amusing by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It's not about dignity, as clearly illustrated above...Law enforcement must have grounds to conduct a search.

      Then why is it ok for them to search my luggage, ask me to empty my pockets, and pat me down? They're already conducting a search, and even conducting a searching me. The only difference I see between a pat down and a body scan is that a body scan is potentially more embarrassing.

    97. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or use an RC helicopter to stick a bomb to the outside of an aircraft - a talented pilot could do it at night without anyone noticing. A small shaped charge in the right place could breach the cabin, breach a fuel tank (which could bring a plane down in the ocean / over the poles under the right conditions) or trash an engine (two such bombs could bring a 2-engined plane down under the right conditions)

      Better post anon...

    98. Re:amusing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's worth noting that whenever they show a scan on TV, they have the subjects put metal plates over their "naughty bits" for the scan. That says something.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    99. Re:amusing by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's all through SF of various stripes... for instance, it's a critical plot element of Stephen R. Donaldson's Gap Cycle novel series.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    100. Re:amusing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no. If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree. When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine).

      In the US, isn't the situation with your bags the same on the street as in the airport since the PATRIOT act? If so that would mean you should consent to searches on the street too (also assuming you live in the US).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    101. Re:amusing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Just get your government to declare that fat people are likely to be terrorists and automobile emissions can be used by terrorists to make sooty bombs. The problem will take care of itself.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    102. Re:amusing by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Well, the 2nd most. The most invasive search requires rubber gloves.

      Well you'll have to wait until after June 13th 2012 for this, when Mustafa Ben'Ahmed will try to detonate a bomb hidden in his ass by farting.

    103. Re:amusing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      There are various situation in which we give up certain privacy, e.g., giving our Social Security number to get a credit card

      Actually that's a textbook example of what not to do with your SSN.

      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211586,00.html

      http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1690827,00.html

      And I would rather not be scanned and board a plane that could have a bomber on it who may have been prevented from getting on board if we had all been digitally stripsearched. The chances are so slim I'm more than willing to take the risk - my cars are far more likely to kill me and they're not uber-safe modern tanks either. Besides, terrorists are pretty much all trying to attack the US, and any terrorist who takes more than 0.5 seconds to pull off his attack over the US is going to be instantly beaten to shit by a plane-load of passengers. See: every attempted attack on an aircraft to or from the US since 9/11.

      BTW, you know you car could be safer if you wore a six-point harness and a helmet with a HANS device and your car had 3" steel plating over it and a racing-style fuel cell. Your current car's practically a deathtrap compared to that. Of course it would cost more, carry less and get about 2MPG, but you can't put a price on safety right? How good is good enough?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    104. Re:amusing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If you're carrying other people's confidential info, I hope you keep it in an encrypted container and don't give those TSA goons the key. Your laptop could be stolen too you know.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    105. Re:amusing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Will that help if she stores the bomb in her uterus and claims to be pregnant (complete with forged doctor's certificate)? Could happen, and it would be very un-PC to give a pregnant woman a hard time...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    106. Re:amusing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      For example, one could encrypt the signal from the scanners as it was passed to the display, store the encrypted bits in the framebuffer, and only decipher the signal as it was passed to the display. The encryption mechanism would need to be a blackbox hardware device so the keys couldn't be snooped.

      You've just described HDCP, which is present in all modern AV equipment and gaming consoles, but I bet you these scanners will not have it. And since it is DRM, not only is it theoretically breakable, but it has been broken - there are devices that can decrypt an HDCP stream, and displays can be hardhacked for access to the unencrypted stream.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    107. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > so, you have an inherent right to travel on the airplane of your choice with no regard for the safety of other passengers?

      No, I have a right to travel on the airplane of my choice if I can reach an agreement with the airline to take me. I do not have the right to endanger other passengers.

      They are not the same thing at all. The government may exercise reasonable powers to make sure I am not a danger, but the response has become WAY out of proportion to the actual threat, to the point where it interferes with the rights of myself and the airline to go about our business.

      Ever hear of the legal principle that you can't make the innocent suffer with the guilty? Or "innocent until proven guilty"? Or the right to "be secure in your person ... papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"?

    108. Re:amusing by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      A mammogram still helps more than these scans ;) That was my point. And, they're not really interesting pictures unless you're a doctor.

    109. Re:amusing by jecblackpepper · · Score: 1

      You know, you don't have to travel. Weigh up the benefit of travelling against the inconvenience, cost, invasion of privacy etc. I no longer travel to the USA. It's just too much hassle and has too much environmental cost; it's outweighed the benefits I previously felt about travelling to the USA.

      If your job requires you to travel but you're not comfortable with the security measures/hassle etc, then get another job. I know it's not necessarily easy, but we all have the choice.

    110. Re:amusing by jecblackpepper · · Score: 1

      Of course the reason for that is that most people don't believe that anti-terrorism measures will directly affect them (except in the additional inconveniences at airports etc) but might do them some good (reducing an already very low risk minutely).

      However, tell them that unhealthy food will cost them a little more, then it'll directly impact them at the check-out and they'll be up in arms. Even though it will do vastly more to prolong their lives than any security theatre might.

    111. Re:amusing by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I dunno, there's some pretty old dirt in my basement.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    112. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

      [citation needed]

    113. Re:amusing by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      I've never been to the USA, and the current paranoia
        and security theater only further reduces the appeal.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    114. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember these scanners will be installed in airports around the world in countries having despicable records for abusing if not killing LGBT people.

      Don't go to those places or accept the risk. You don't have the right to travel absolutely everywhere on planet Earth nor, likely, your country or even the community in which you live or mall where you shop. Get over it.

    115. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be easier to just look for people with obvious signs of stuffing their crotch with cloth.

      I guess Lenny Kravitz won't be flying anytime soon then.

    116. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw that, I don't want the stupid scanner to "accidentally" flag me, and then save my "flagged" image to a permanent record so that I can be denied flights or whatever shit.

      Let them strip-search me. Hell, I'll strip naked for security. I'd rather be subjected to a person's direct judgement than a blurry, fuzzy image.

    117. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bearing that in mind, we need to look at what people's intent is, not what they are carrying on their person.

      Thought crime?

    118. Re:amusing by querist · · Score: 1

      Thank you for making such a strong and clear case as to why these things are such a bad idea, and all for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with protecting people from terrorism.

    119. Re:amusing by querist · · Score: 1
      I know it would be easy, and callous, to say "Don't go to those places."

      You may have little choice in the matter. You may have family in those places. You have have other equally compelling reasons to visit those places. These scanners present a powerful and unique invasion of privacy that could only be matched by a strip search or a very intimate pat-down search.

      Thank you for being willing to share your thoughts on the matter and for bringing an important, if uncommon, perspective to this debate.

    120. Re:amusing by querist · · Score: 1
      Or more importantly, it is generally not recommended to expose a pregnant female to radiation. (Often, recommendations are against flying in the last trimester as well.)

      Therefore, she would be given a pat-down and let through.

      Great - now you've given them ideas.

    121. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns are a tool that your government uses to make you believe you still have your freedom. do you honestly think you could overthrow your government with your weenie little handgun, with the amount the government spends on it's military each year?

      This is true. The only effective way to overthrow the government is to stop giving them money. Cold turkey, everyone says "no more taxes for you assholes." Then immediately start working to hold new elections and banning any incumbent from running.

      Of course, all hell would break loose in the interim, but isn't that what the forefathers expected after they sent the Declaration off to King George?

    122. Re:amusing by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Then why is it ok for them to search my luggage, ask me to empty my pockets, and pat me down?

      As already explained, because special exceptions have already been created to lower the standards at airports. There is no need and no justification to lower them further.

      They're already conducting a search, and even conducting a searching me.

      No, they aren't. A pat down isn't a search.

      The only difference I see between a pat down and a body scan is that a body scan is potentially more embarrassing.

      Let vanity go. It's an irrelevant straw man. Embarrassment has nothing to do with anything.

      Then you've missed the concept of levels of suspicion and constitutional limits on evidence gathering entirely.

      A pat down is currently an extra level of invasion (+1) over the current standard procedure. It is two levels beneath a strip search (+3) and three beneath a cavity search (+4) on the scales for legal standards. These machines launch all passengers to a digital cavity search. It's hard to make the problem any more clear.

      Just getting to the metal detectors and X-ray machines at all required relaxing legal standards and invading on the personal rights of passengers. What justifies them skipping past go all the way to the top?

    123. Re:amusing by nine-times · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't. A pat down isn't a search.

      It certainly is. A pat down is a search, and requiring you to empty your pockets is a search. Requiring you to take off your jacket and put it through an xray machine is a search.

      Also, I don't think the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant. Human dignity is part of the scheme of "inalienable human rights" that the bill of rights was based on.

      Now you may not agree that this sort of humiliation isn't the chief issue, but it's certainly an issue. It's not a straw man. Check what the Supreme Court had to say about the recent case where a 13 year old was strip-searched on suspicion of possessing drugs. Their reasoning was not that the girl should not have been searched, but that a strip-search in particular is traumatic, degrading, and humiliating, and that it should therefore require at least a strong suspicion of serious danger.

      Now if you want to argue that people should not be subjected to a search at the airport, then you should have a problem with the searches that already take place. Once you're being searched, though, you're being searched. If the objection to these body scans is not that they're humiliating and degrading, then I don't know what the objection is. That they're too effective? The objection to body cavity searches isn't that body cavity searches are too effective. The objection isn't "but I might be hiding something in there" or "but I have a special right to privacy in my body cavities that requires a special warrant." It's specifically that the process is degrading, traumatic, and invasive, and that we don't want to subject people to it without good reason.

      So if you want to argue that this scanning is too humiliating and degrading, then even though I don't feel that way, I think it's a valid argument. If your argument is simply that we have a right against searches and therefore shouldn't be searched at airports, then I think you also have to argue that we shouldn't be searched at airports.

    124. Re:amusing by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      If there really were hundreds or thousands or even more than a dozen or two intelligent terrorists in the United States right now, do you really think the best they could do is suicide bombing a few lines in airports? What about places with 0 security that would be even more difficult and unlikely to secure? Is there really anything stopping terrorists from blowing up malls all across America? Or schools, bridges, dams, railroads, town halls, hotels, etc? Yet we're scared about one small facet of transportation, despite the fact that there is no chance that passengers would just sit there during a hijacking anymore, and what America itself does makes very little difference when someone can hop a flight from a foreign nation into the US.

    125. Re:amusing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's a big deal. (Am I a closet nudist?)

    126. Re:amusing by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1
      I think the problem here is that you're confusing a heck of a lot of different issues. This may seem like legalese to you, but when it comes to rights, the distinctions are important.

      Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while. There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason.

      Actually, this is not an issue of "freedom of speech" at all. You were threatening to attack the President of the US. That is actually a crime in and of itself. No need to violate freedom of speech.

      I think the example you may be looking for might be something like falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, which is a classic example used for supposedly restricted speech, for the obvious reason that it can cause panic, injury, etc. Although this example is often used, the ruling was later limited, so the restriction on speech only occurs when the speech would incite imminent lawless actions, such as rioting.

      Thus, the reasons for restricting freedom of speech are very, very few. Your example has nothing to do with that.

      Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.

      The reason for this has to do with the fact that school administrators are de facto guardians serving in loco parentis, i.e., acting in the place of parents. They are not acting as police, but rather assume the duties of parents for minors. This has nothing to do with probable cause, but rather the fact that you're dealing with minors who are in the care of the state. For a similar reason, prisoners give up their rights against searches, because they are in the care of the state. This has nothing to do with the general adult population, however, and it's a poor analogy.

      So given this issue of context,

      This "context" is irrelevant. Rights don't disappear depending on "context." The situations you mention don't deprive anyone of any of their normal rights under the law.

      I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere.

      You could say that, but before 9/11 and the Patriot Act, you'd be on rather shaky ground. Before 9/11, the scanners were operated by the airlines, even though the process was administered by the FAA; in any case, it wasn't actually law enforcement who were conducting searches. Basically, in general you consented to search in order to do business with the airlines. There are actually precious few exceptions to the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches -- under almost all circumstances, a warrant is required. The only exceptions generally require a high standard of probable cause, and they usually only happen in circumstances where time is critical, such as in airports, where warrants would delay travel.

      The relevant exceptions to airline security are the administrative exception, the stop-and-frisk exception, and the consent exception. The last one is obviously what most searches have traditionally fallen under, which is simply that people just consent to them, and therefore they are legal. That isn't really a "lower expectation of privacy," since you are voluntarily giving it up. The "stop-and-frisk" exception requires probable cause; it's generally what a police officer would use if he/she thought you were carrying contraband and didn't have time or opportunity to obtain a warrant. Note that it still does *require* probable cause. That's the reason police don't just pat down everyone in security; they wait until you show up on the scanner as potentially carrying something of int

    127. Re:amusing by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      It certainly is. A pat down is a search, and requiring you to empty your pockets is a search.

      No, those are not full searches, just as a temporary detention is not a full arrest. There is a significant constitutional and legal difference between a pat-down for weapons and a full search.

      Also, I don't think the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant.

      Clearly you do, since your whole argument to this point has been "the only difference between now and these machines is embarrassment"--an argument that ignores the entirety of the problem.

      Now if you want to argue that people should not be subjected to a search at the airport, then you should have a problem with the searches that already take place.

      No. What part of "levels of suspicion" and "levels of invasion and compulsion" is not registering here?

      There is a massive difference between a metal detector and a strip search. Because one is justified does not mean the other is.

      The schema that is in place is the most invasive protocol that can be constitutionally and rationally defended. Jumping a minimum of four levels of compulsion and personal invasion with absolutely no suspicion whatsoever is the entire issue.

      This is the most invasive search possible, conducted for absolutely no cause. It is a complete and total abrogation of rights.

      If the objection to these body scans is not that they're humiliating and degrading, then I don't know what the objection is. That they're too effective?

      Is your objection to being stopped on the street and asked to step into a strip search booth based on the fact that it would be humiliating?

      It's specifically that the process is degrading, traumatic, and invasive, and that we don't want to subject people to it without good reason.

      No, it isn't. Degradation is a factor in how the searches are conducted, not whether they are tolerated at all. You've missed the whole point in case law regarding when it's permissible to be subjected to compulsory search beyond reason.

      Your argument smacks of "once you've been pulled over for a minor traffic violation, you're now subject to a complete search of your person and vehicle"--a conclusion not supported by US jurisprudence. "Search" is not a binary state as you so ineffectively argue. If the police are investigating a crime, they can ask you questions and you have every right to decline to answer. If you've been stopped for a traffic violation, the only permissible search is what's in plain sight, unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion (a legal term of art) that you have a weapon, in which case he can search your person and, per Gant, any area under your immmediate physical control. He doesn't have a right to search your passengers, or your trunk, or your engine compartment.

      Mandatory use of these machines renders an innocent citizen completely without rights--even more so than inmates in prison, who can be searched without cause, but not subjected to a cavity search without suspicion. That is the problem in a nutshell. It is not justifiable that a person in prison enjoys greater personal protection than an innocent citizen suspected of no impropriety.

    128. Re:amusing by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is not an issue of "freedom of speech" at all.

      Yes it does. You haven't actually committed any action, but the freedom of speech doesn't necessarily extend to threats. Yes, people often use the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but there are actually several issues where the "freedom of speech" does not allow you to simply say whatever you like. You also aren't exactly free to talk with people about planning crimes. You can also get in trouble for slander, libel, or perjury.

      This has nothing to do with probable cause, but rather the fact that you're dealing with minors who are in the care of the state.

      Right, but the point is that they're agents of the state who are permitted to conduct searches without probable cause, and that's an example of your 4th amendment right not being absolute, but being subject to context.

      The airline may refuse you passage as part of their own terms, perhaps, but the government has no right to search you...We consent to the searches, and therefore they are legal. If one person doesn't consent, the airline may be able to deny them boarding...

      Right, so you're saying that the airlines can require you to get these body scans or refuse you passage, but the government can't force you to get the scan whether you want passage on the plane or not. How is this not exactly what we're talking about?

      I don't think anyone had the expectation that the government would be scanning random people at the airport, but that the body scan would be part of the security checks that are conducted before you're allowed to go to your gate.

      If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree.

      Why? What's the difference?

      Umm... I want to get a on plane, and I understand that in order to be allowed on a plane, I have to submit to a search. I can refuse to be searched, and then I won't be allowed on my plane. Again, if you want to argue that we shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane, go ahead and argue that. I don't think you will, though.

      But that's a very subjective thing, and that idea of being "stripped of your dignity" is a very personal thing.

      And the law is sometimes decided by fairly subjective things, so what's your point? The law often judges based on intent and reasonable standards. How do you think "probable cause" is determined? On a case by case basis, based on reasonable judgements. Yes, yes, there are precedents that can guide people making those decisions, but every case is still an exercise of someone's judgement. Part of the reasons we have judges and juries are to make reasonable decisions instead of merely deciding everything on technicalities.

      But I don't necessarily think that any one person's opinion should determine policy, nor do I think that how you feel about something is necessarily applicable to how other people might feel.

      Did I say it should? Geeze, I think you should settle down, go back, and re-read my post if you really want to continue arguing. My whole point is that I don't *personally* think I would find these scans to be more invasive than a pat-down, but not only shouldn't that judgement necessarily apply, it might even be that there might even be something wrong with that judgement (hence claiming that I might have some kind of "mental defect", which wasn't intended to be taken as a legal judgement of insanity). In your rush to swoop in and save the day with your divine level of intelligence, I suspect that you didn't actually read and consider what I was saying.

    129. Re:amusing by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Also, I don't think the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant.

      Clearly you do, since your whole argument to this point has been "the only difference between now and these machines is embarrassment"--an argument that ignores the entirety of the problem.

      Right, so obviously I don't think that the question of embarrassment and humiliation is irrelevant.

      You've missed the whole point in case law regarding when it's permissible to be subjected to compulsory search beyond reason.

      No, you've missed the point: You keep talking about how "invasive" the searches are as being a determining factor, but how "invasive" a search is has nothing to do with whether it's thorough or effective. If someone is already being permitted to pat you down, then no one has a problem with that person also using a metal detector. None of us balk at airport security using a metal detector, even though it's more effective at finding metal than a pat-down, and metal detectors even use signals that penetrate your clothes, and no one complains about metal detectors being "strip searches". As far as I know, there's also no legal way in which metal detectors are considered more invasive than a pat down.

      No, what makes people view these body scanners as "more invasive" is specifically the fact that it allows others to *see* under your clothes, i.e. to get a visual representation of what everything under your clothes looks like.

    130. Re:amusing by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Did I say it should? Geeze, I think you should settle down, go back, and re-read my post if you really want to continue arguing.

      I did read your post multiple times. And my point wasn't actually to argue with you or your opinion about these particular searches, which I think is a perfectly valid one to hold. I was just trying to point out some subtleties to the examples that you gave. For example, "freedom of speech" is still not applicable to your first example. Yes, a clear verbal threat that advocates violence against the POTUS would allow you to be arrested. But that's not what you described. If we're having a discussion about Obama, and you say "Sic semper tyrannis" as a calm part of an argument, even in the presence of Secret Service men, you probably can't be arrested for that speech, because it does not constitute a clear verbal threat on the face of it. However, if you add the fact that you're shouting it while running toward the President, and now your actions as a whole constitute a threat. Again, freedom of speech per se would not come into your example; you could be yelling almost anything, even "I love you Obama," but you'd probably be tackled and interrogated if you ran at the President suddenly. I could go through again and respond case-by-case again, but I don't think that's a productive use of either of our time.

      My whole point is that I don't *personally* think I would find these scans to be more invasive than a pat-down, but not only shouldn't that judgement necessarily apply

      And yes, I do think that a post where you give a bunch of examples about how you think you have a lower expectation of privacy, followed by your opinion that you'd be okay with these searches, constitutes at least an argument that maybe you think these things are okay in some general sense -- despite your "mental defect" comment, which yes (of course) I understood as not being literal. If you just wanted to state your feeling about the matter, I doubt you'd have prefaced it by an entire argument about privacy rights.

      I don't think anyone had the expectation that the government would be scanning random people at the airport, but that the body scan would be part of the security checks that are conducted before you're allowed to go to your gate.

      Actually, the "government" is scanning random people at the airport. Who do you think the TSA is? They're the ones operating the scanners in the "security checks". They are the government, specifically part of the Department of Homeland Security. And there aren't too many other "random people" at airports, other than people who want to board a plane. No -- actually, there are plenty of people, like family members, etc. People I might want to say farewell to before I get on my flight. Notice how they aren't allowed into the gate area anymore? Why? You could argue that they're a security risk, but from a legal standpoint, it would be much more difficult for the government to force searches on them. Before 9/11, when government agents weren't doing the searching it was one thing, but now? So it's just easier to exclude those people from the gate area, rather than deal with the legality of searching them.

      So actually I am a little annoyed that these government-controlled searches prevent me from spending an hour or two at the gate with family members or friends before leaving.

      Umm... I want to get a on plane, and I understand that in order to be allowed on a plane, I have to submit to a search. I can refuse to be searched, and then I won't be allowed on my plane. Again, if you want to argue that we shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane, go ahead and argue that. I don't think you will, though.

      Actually, I also think it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion to argue that you shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane. You aren't search

    131. Re:amusing by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Actually, the "government" is scanning random people at the airport. Who do you think the TSA is? They're the ones operating the scanners in the "security checks". They are the government

      My point of contrast wasn't supposed to be that "it's not the government screening people", but rather "the government isn't stopping random people at the airport and searching them." Yes, I was particularly referring to friends and family picking people up and dropping people off, since those people are not stopped and searched. It's only people who are attempting to board a plane who are required to pass through security screening.

      I can't claim to have a thorough knowledge of all the legal arguments around these sorts of things, but it's not uncommon. I had to pass through a screening to get into the courthouse when I served for jury duty. I had to pass through security to go to the social security office. Both of these required some kind of search. We accept it, and I'd be very surprised if anyone (even the founding fathers themselves) believed that it was unconstitutional for the government to require security screening in order to gain access to particular places.

      Actually, I also think it's a perfectly reasonable suggestion to argue that you shouldn't be subjected to any kind of search before getting on a plane.

      I think it's a reasonable suggestion too, which is why I brought it up. However, I'd like to point out that you keep saying "it's a reasonable suggestion" without actually claiming to be in favor of it. Do you actually believe we shouldn't have any kind of search or security checkpoint before boarding a plane?

    132. Re:amusing by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      No, you've missed the point: You keep talking about how "invasive" the searches are as being a determining factor, but how "invasive" a search is has nothing to do with whether it's thorough or effective.

      Whether it's thorough or effective has nothing to do with whether it is constitutionally defensible.

      The NSA monitoring all communications and wiretapping all phones would be very effective at stopping crimes, from pot sales to terrorist plots. That doesn't justify the government doing it.

      There's this concept that seems to escape you of "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps you should consider the implications of that.

      If someone is already being permitted to pat you down, then no one has a problem with that person also using a metal detector.

      Because a pat down is already a more invasive procedure than a metal detector. You're going the opposite way.

      As far as I know, there's also no legal way in which metal detectors are considered more invasive than a pat down.

      Because they're not. Metal detectors are less invasive, and that is why .

      metal detectors even use signals that penetrate your clothes, and no one complains about metal detectors being "strip searches"

      Metal detectors aren't strip searches. They're passive devices calibrated to respond to certain materials only.

      No, what makes people view these body scanners as "more invasive" is specifically the fact that it allows others to *see* under

      NO. NO. NO. It is not the body revealed that is the invasion, it is the compulsion of being subjected to the highest standards of evidence gathering for less than the minimum standard to be stopped as a citizen on the street.

      It truly is not this complicated, so I must assume at this point that you are just trolling.

      Invasion and compulsion are concepts of impingement into constitutional liberty. You cannot be compelled to produce proof absent suspicion of a wrongful act. Just as a police officer can't arrest you without probable cause, they cannot without justification demand a cavity search of a person. It is the demand for evidence that is an invasion, not the fact that a naked person is involved.

      You may think it a minor distinction, but it is the foundation of the criminal justice and evidentiary systems of American jurisprudence.

      There is nothing about airports or air travel that justifies this complete elimination of suspicion and of less invasive methods of detection. If you are making the vacuous argument that airports are dangerous and therefore it's okay not to have rights, are you also saying you consent to strip searches at ball parks and sports stadiums if a terrorist decides one day to blow one of those up? Are you comfortable being forced to present conclusive evidence of your innocence for wanting to step into a bank, because those are sensitive places? Maybe we should install giant car-sized scanners at gas stations, because that would be pretty effective at finding criminals? Is it acceptable for the government to search your hard drives and monitor your Internet activity as long as they don't change any data? No harm, no foul?

      I have nothing to hide, therefore I am willing to subject all of my fellow citizens to a world of supervision and surveillance of all actions and communications when none of them is even suspected of wrongdoing?

    133. Re:amusing by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      However, I'd like to point out that you keep saying "it's a reasonable suggestion" without actually claiming to be in favor of it.

      You're absolutely right. I think one could make valid arguments for a number of these positions.

      Do you actually believe we shouldn't have any kind of search or security checkpoint before boarding a plane?

      I think people should be searched if there is probable cause to suspect that they might be up to something. But otherwise?

      I do think there needs to be some consistency across airports, or else it could make those with less security into targets. But I think the level of security we had before 9/11 was more than sufficient.

      To answer your question directly -- I don't think it could ever happen, but yes, I'd advocate NO security check over our current system. The current system wastes huge amount of time and resources, and if someone is actually intelligent, careful, and determined, our current system probably wouldn't protect us. (Not to mention that until recently in the US, you could actually travel domestically without an ID if you claimed to have forgotten it (and perhaps you still can), which punches a huge hole in all of the careful ID screening.) We spend billions of dollars per year on this security. I've seen the estimates on the amount of time wasted every year by people arriving early and standing in line for security, and each year in the US the collective time wasted in security checks and arriving early at the airport for them comes to over a thousand lifespans. The cost-benefit analysis there says that on average people would lose less collective "lifespans" if we had a 9/11 incident every few years and lost a few thousand lives than the time (and productivity) lost to our current security system. Of course, that's assuming a major terrorist incident every few years that kills thousands of people due to planes, which seems unlikely if only for the fact that it's unlikely that passengers would sit back and let planes be crashed into major buildings again. And the billions of dollars spent directly on security also doesn't take into account the billions of dollars lost because of lost work time, or even the billions of dollars people end up spending on things like bottled water inside the gate area, which they now can't get through security.

      All of that said, I can perhaps see the rationale for quick and easy things like walking through a metal detector to detect guns and large knives, as they might do at a courthouse or something like that. But even that has a cost-benefit side. On the very rare occasion where someone would use a weapon on a plane, perhaps the threats of other passengers possibly having weapons might be a deterrent. I don't know.

      Either way, our current system is stupid, and I seriously think it creates a sort of "challenge" for terrorists, as well as making the terror effect stronger when a successful attack occurs, because we have a false sense of security and are more sensitive when it appears to be breached.

      Of course, the problem with all of these arguments is that most people are irrational (well, all people are to various degrees), and they already react irrationally to flying, plane crashes, etc. So even small terrorist events can have a major impact (economically, socially, and psychologically), which I assume is the rationale behind the current hysteria. And therefore, I don't think that we're going to go back to minimal security anytime soon, even if it might be the most rational course from a security standpoint.

      A final thought -- This week's issue of The New Yorker had an interesting column about terrorism. One columnist noted, after the "shoe-bomber" incident, that the shoe-bomber was characterized by acquaintances as highly impressionable, and his bombing attempt was indeed somewhat lamely executed. The columnist speculated that there was some other terrorist who convinced the shoe-bomber to do it

    134. Re:amusing by ps2os2 · · Score: 0

      Excellent point. I believe the issue os sexting has made it to judicial look at at the Federal Level. This is an area that I had not thought of and should be addressed by the judges as well. It probably will end up in the Supreme Court after 10 years.

  4. So? by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't matter, and nothing we think on this subject matters anyway.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    1. Re:So? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sadly, that seems to be pretty much true. If the fact that they won't actually prevent anything (because they can't scan inside body cavities), can cause DNA damage (by unzipping DNA strands), and are a major privacy violation isn't enough to prevent this multi-billion-dollar waste of taxpayer dollars from happening, nothing we can possibly say or do will prevent it, either. The only way this will stop is if we can convince enough people to stop flying. If these things went in and suddenly people said "screw you" and stopped flying, the airlines would push back on the government and this bullshit would stop. Until it hits the airlines in their pocketbooks---and hard---we will continue to see more and more of this invasive crap happening; the only thing that can stop it is public backlash sufficient to cause people to refuse to fly.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until it hits the airlines in their pocketbooks---and hard---we will continue to see more and more of this invasive crap happening; the only thing that can stop it is a discontinuation of airline bailouts.

      Fixed that for you.

    3. Re:So? by Unoti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only way this will stop is if we can convince enough people to stop flying

      You're right, of course. It'd be really great if we lived in some sort of democratic society where the people have a say in what the govenrment does, and the officials are responsible to the will of the people.

    4. Re:So? by Flentil · · Score: 1

      I have already chosen to boycott the airlines for just this reason, a couple years ago when it seemed like this would become a reality. I'd rather rent a car and have an increased risk of dying in a car crash than have any part of this draconian practice. I wish that everyone would join me, but my pessimism says nobody cares enough to actually make a stand and choose an alternative way to travel. I don't expect be on a plane for the next 10 years at least, and nothing would change my mind until they got rid of these scanners.

    5. Re:So? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Won't happen until the first Girls Gone Wild: Airport Style hits the shelves. Then, the s**t's going to hit the fan.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The only way this will stop is if we can convince enough people to stop flying.|

      Yes. This is exactly what needs to happen. Unfortunately, we the people consists of folk who think Sarah Palin would be an OK choice for president. As such, I seriously doubt if we the people can pull our collective heads out of our asses long enough to bring this country back. I don't think the current system can extract the corporate cock from it's mouth without help.

    7. Re:So? by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      This is my first reaction too. I'm not flying anymore with these scanners installed.

      I could cope with the unnecessary checks at airports (I've been in the last years around the USA and Canada, flying in from Europe.) honestly, most of that was a theatre wasting me and others alot of time. I'll take my business and money elsewhere.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    8. Re:So? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. It'd be really great if we lived in some sort of democratic society where the people have a say in what the govenrment does, and the officials are responsible to the will of the people.

      But they are doing the "will of the people." The problem is, this is exactly why we are a democratic republic, rather than a simple democracy, which is intended to stop the idiotic and uneducated masses from driving the country off a cliff. Sadly, fear mongering and cliff driving is beneficial for entertainment news (almost all news in the US) and a representative's pockets so sanity is not prevailing - only corruption and stupidity.

    9. Re:So? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Won't happen until the first Girls Gone Wild: Airport Style hits the shelves. Then, the s**t's going to hit the fan.

      When I posted the TSA scan of the slender gal with the full bust and visible nipples, that's exactly what my female friends said, roughly "the hell with that, I'm driving." (sadly, they cared less about the DNA damage)

      Funny how most of the TSA PR pictures have over-exposure blooms on the 'private' areas, ain't it? (go look again)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:So? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone should make a mockumentary like that and release it. It will make people think and push back against this. Show fake TSA agents getting turned on by scans of hot girls in the backroom, laughing at scans of people with fat/strange bodies, taking pics of the screen with their cell phones and sending it to their friends. All totally possible IRL (in fact I'd be shocked if it didn't happen). If public outrage can kill anything, this is it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. Of course it's possible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How else were the demonstration scans shown in media articles made?

  6. Oh well. by hyperion2010 · · Score: 1

    Another government money waister that should go tits up, how fitting.

  7. Who really thought they couldn't? by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    If it can be done, it will be done.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  8. Funny you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why yes officer, my balls really are that big. Why do you ask?

    1. Re:Funny you ask... by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Funny

      Suddenly, I understand how this works.

      "Nope, he hasn't got the balls to hijack a plane."

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    2. Re:Funny you ask... by jobst · · Score: 1

      if you got balls THAT big you don't want to hijack planes but rather all the girls on that plane ;-)

      --
      to code or not to code, that is the question.
  9. Deja vu all over again by daknapp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, what a surprise! Just like electronic voting machines, I'm absolutely certain they are invulnerable to hacking.

  10. Check the redactions by russotto · · Score: 5, Funny

    Further analysis of the documents finds some improperly-redacted material indicating that the test mode can in fact be entered with a sequence on the control panel, to wit "UP UP DOWN DOWN LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT B A START".

    1. Re:Check the redactions by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

      Depends on the machine. Most of them it works well but on the wrong model you die instantly.

    2. Re:Check the redactions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any Contra fan knows its "Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A B A Select Start"

    3. Re:Check the redactions by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      This is talking about a two-player mode. You need to press SELECT before you press START.

    4. Re:Check the redactions by TriezGamer · · Score: 1

      Minor nitpick, but EXTREMELY common oversight. SELECT and START are not part of the code. SELECT is commonly believed to be part of the code, but as the code is most commonly used on the title screen, it only switches between single and multiplayer modes, and START was to actually start the game. Konami had several games where this code was used in places other than the title screen, and SELECT and START are not a requirement.

  11. Good enough for government work by ebonum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "cannot be hacked"
    This should be a massive red flag. The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.

    "employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal"

    Hmmm. So when pushed, they admit that security is ensured by the fact that the government employees are going to behave. Just like those Blackwater guys?

    I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things. Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.

    1. Re:Good enough for government work by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      He's saying they can't be hacked because they aren't on a network (like the Battlestar Galactica). But the images are viewed at a remote location, and the data has to be transmitted somehow. So of course they can be hacked. Even if it weren't so, someone could simply take a picture of the viewing screen with a digital camera.

    2. Re:Good enough for government work by geekmux · · Score: 1

      "cannot be hacked" This should be a massive red flag...I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things. Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.

      Ah, sorry, but you couldn't pay me enough to sit in front of one of these things for even five minutes. After seeing the 457th lard-ass waddle their way through the scanner, I'd likely be puking too hard to care about hacking. I'm betting those images would make a Gynecologists office in a retirement community look like Playboy by comparison.

    3. Re:Good enough for government work by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      the wireless ability is probably an expansion card that's removed after testing/servicing. so unhackable in that instance is correct.

      All the fuss is really about women who don't want slack jawed TSA agents gawking at their naked image. i can well imagine them creating walls of fame as actors etc go through these machines and they take a snap shot of the screen with their phones.

      one solution would be to make all the operators female, even that isn't a perfect solution. really i question the cost effectiveness of this whole fiasco. this isn't going to stop some terrorist smuggling a bomb on a plane that he's shoved up his arse is it?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Good enough for government work by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, this would be a great application for that Van Eck idea. Everyone's always playing with their wifi doodads at airports, no one will notice someone setting up an odd "wifi" antenna that just happens to capture the images on the security guy's monitor. Heck, maybe his flight is late in the day, he could be there for hours.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    5. Re:Good enough for government work by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      "cannot be hacked"
      This should be a massive red flag. The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.

      It does to us, but this is the TSA. They have a blank check. The money isn't theirs. They want to make it look like they're doing a job, one that they've never been capable of doing. Saying "This can't be hacked" makes them think "Oh good, something else not to worry about, buy it now!"

    6. Re:Good enough for government work by TubeReceiver · · Score: 1

      Well, the thing has to be network connected so that software updates can be pushed out ... TSA or their contractor certainly are not going to fly from airport to airport to shove a floppy into these things when they need upgrading, and you're not going to trust the local yokels in MiddleofKnowhere USA to do the upgrade... so of course they can be hacked, and of course the data can be uploaded to TSA central ( or that DHS facility that helped out so much during Katrina ! ).

    7. Re:Good enough for government work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one solution would be to make all the operators female, even that isn't a perfect solution. really i question the cost effectiveness of this whole fiasco. this isn't going to stop some terrorist smuggling a bomb on a plane that he's shoved up his arse is it?

      Sexism works both ways and that, my friend is one hell of a sexist comment.

    8. Re:Good enough for government work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By the way, the assumption the parent must have been posted by a man is also sexist.

      I don't want anyone seeing details of my crotch through a scanner and I don't care what the gender of those looking may be.

      We are animals, but one trait humans share is modesty. We wear cloths. If we didn't, no big deal with a scan like this. However, we do wear cloths and we do for a reason. Something that bi-passes me making a decision about my own body isn't OK particularly when that decision is made not by me but for me.

      If principle is always abandoned for the practical assumption, I don't think we would have such things like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights (probably the most significant part of the Constitution even though is it shit on the most... ever wonder why or consider who does the shitting and why they do it?), the Magna Carta, ect.,...

      So, since its not about PRINCIPLE at all, I make my own PRACTICAL decision - I won't fly. That doesn't mean I'll drive instead - it means I won't travel as much if at all. PRACTICALLY speaking, I don't NEED to travel.

      Sometimes, making a decision based on principle IS the practical thing to do. To not do this based on PRINCIPLE seems to me to be the PRACTICAL thing to do given the numbers and statistics and probabilities. The reverse, as many have said indicates that 'the terrorists' have won - they did and continue to terrorize us to the point that we throw away our principles and on top of if make arguments about which gender should run the scans based on assumed levels of perversion due to gender.

      How bas-ackwards can we be?

    9. Re:Good enough for government work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pop in a linux or forensic boot disk, scour the disk for starlet images, no one will be the wiser.
      Or use personal mobile phone to snap saleable images.
      Splice the video cable to a personal recorder.

      Any minimum wage goon can retire on a celebrity is pregnant - or abortion/ breast implant shot.
      Like voting machines, negligent statements are being made.

    10. Re:Good enough for government work by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things.

      Now you've gone and done it, you've just been red-flagged in an anti-terrorism data-mining system somewhere...

    11. Re:Good enough for government work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal"

      Why doesn't this line read something like:

      "employees who misuse the machine are subject to 50 years, no parole, in Federal, pound-me-in-the-ass prison AND forfeiture of all assets held solely or jointly to the victim(s) of the misuse."?

    12. Re:Good enough for government work by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Actually, this would be a great application for that Van Eck idea.

      Yeah, but who's got $2000 to fund that website. I mean, err, um... hey, whatever happened to eckbox?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:Good enough for government work by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I don't think "cannot be hacked" is an unreasonable thing to say if it's truly airgapped from any networks and there's no way to do anything unusual through the console. Of course hardhacks are always a possibility when you have physical access, but it's an accurate statement within reason.

      Still doesn't mean you can take pics of the screen though.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    14. Re:Good enough for government work by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      A Republican would call it "reverse sexism" :P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:Good enough for government work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not going to stop some terrorist blowing up a huge suitcase-sized bomb in the security check-in line at rush hour, either. That this hasn't happened yet is the main reason why I don't believe terrorists actually exist.

  12. Not answering is an answer by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.

    Leaving aside the idea of whether we really should care or not...

    By not answering, I think this official made the answer pretty obvious. Basically it's analogous to the RFID passport issue. When they say "it can only be done under these specific circumstances", they're simply leaving off the lead-in phrase "Our policy is clear - ". The erstwhile "restriction" is political, not technical.

    I imagine it won't be too long before some enterprising TSA employee - or a hacker - puts up a website with surreptitious photographs of cute women alongside their full-body scan images.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Not answering is an answer by linhares · · Score: 1

      Leaving aside the idea of whether we really should care or not...

      How can you do that? I heard something about the place being the home of the brave & land of the free; it's become just some atlas shrugged clusterfuck.

  13. Your question is answered.. by cortesoft · · Score: 1

    But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.

    The official's reluctance to provide additional information on what is required to put it into test mode pretty much gives you your answer; you just need more information on how it works in order to put it in test mode.

    1. Re:Your question is answered.. by brkello · · Score: 1

      Or, more likely, the guy just didn't have a clue how it worked.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    2. Re:Your question is answered.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Settings > Mode > Testing

  14. Credit where credit is due... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I am very worried that they might be able to preserve a fuzzy resemblance of my body after I go through an airport scanner. I devote a lot of effort to man-scrapping, and I would appreciate it if they would at least use good enough quality equipment to show off my efforts...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  15. Dignity is an essential human right. by $beirdo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.

    We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right not to be examined nude en masse by the government when we travel.

    Dignity is an essential human right. How dare we sacrifice it to terror?

    Freedom? Yeah, right!

    1. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by Game_Ender · · Score: 1

      If they could do a non-invasive brain and interior body scan to determine if you had explosives surgically implanted or were thinking about committing a terrorist attack they would, and there would be people cheering them on.

    2. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.

      You know, I was kind of annoyed by the concept until you put it just as you did. I imagined it. I didn't care.

      I've realized that I don't care about some "TSA creep" snickering about my body, or anything else of mine, or anyone else's body for that matter. By definition of their being a "creep" their opinion is irrelevant to me. Can they match person X with their image? Doubtful, but probably possible. But even then, there is nothing stopping anyone from [i]claiming[/i] a vague or doctored image corresponds to me either.

      I'd much rather have them view me remotely in ever intimate detail than lay their hands on me or my possessions. I can't control what someone does with their eyes. Touching me and my possessions is the [i]real[/i] invasion, IMO.

      If these scanners speed up the pointless, arbitrary and farcical "security" line, that is a win for dignity right there. Forcing me, a peaceful, law-abiding adult to queue up like livestock and waste my time are two more [i]tangible[/i] indignities that I would gladly trade for the chance that some loser might get a thrill out of my body scan.

    3. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Snickering?

      When my wife goes through there, they'll be dropping to their kness, chanting, "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!"

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by BitHive · · Score: 1

      If dignity were an essential human right, the free market would have already put a price on it. As this has not happened, we must conclude "dignity" is a liberal myth.

    5. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      We've become french. This is our white flag.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "I've realized that I don't care about some "TSA creep" snickering about my body, or anything else of mine, or anyone else's body for that matter."

      Why didn't the TSA official explain it to me that way in the first place?

      Reporter: Mr. TSA official, shouldn't we be concerned about privacy issues?

      TSA Official: Well, we thought so at first, but then we checked with some guy on Slashdot whose SlashID describes his dogs breath after he gets a blowjob and realized that it's not something anybody should care about ...

      Thanks for setting me straight on the issue.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by The+TSA · · Score: 1

      We are all endowed...

      Sir, let me assure you that the TSA is not in the least interested in how endowed you are, either individually or as a group. Nor does the TSA want to know how you, as a group of endowed people, spend your time or what activities you engage in, as long as your activities pose no threat to national security. Thank you, you may now go back to your nudist swinger group and share the good news.

    8. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

      When some idiot blows his dick off (quite literally), we have proven that we cannot have nice things like air travel, and proven that we need more surveillance and shit.

    9. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you're saying that she looks like Alice Cooper?

    10. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Senator: "We must stop at nothing to prevent terrorist attacks!"
      TSA1: "I can see your penis."
      Senator: "Err....well...uhhhh..."
      TSA2: "Your wife has nice tits, too."
      Senator: "Now wait a just a minute..."
      TSA3: "Mmm...barely legal T&A. Are you sure that daughter is yours?"
      Senator: "May God smite you! I am outraged!"
      TSA1: "Sir, you are behaving in an odd manner. I'm afraid we'll need to do a full cavity search."
      TSA2: "The wife's mine."
      TSA3: "Dibs on the daughter!"
      Senator: "My God, what have I done?"
      God: "Fucking idiot."

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    11. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by copponex · · Score: 1

      Senator: "My God, what have I done?"
      God: "Fucking idiot."

      When I'm feeling down, I revel in the idea that maybe He just gave up a few hundred years ago.

    12. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by JakartaDean · · Score: 1

      Dignity is an essential human right. How dare we sacrifice it to terror?

      I came across this qutoe from Susan Neiman a couple of weeks ago in the Economist, and it seems to fit here:

      Human dignity requires the love of ideals for their own sake, but nothing requires that the love will be requited.

      It can be argued that security agencies aren't in the business of ideals, or dignity, but it seems they're not allowing anyone else to be either.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    13. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Dignity an essential human right?

      I'm not so sure. If "Dignity" is defined as anything somebody takes offense at, then we're all offenders. People who write things about my race that I find offensive offend my dignity. The proper response to the vast majority of such offenses is to ignore them.

      I'd say that people have a right to self determination, which means at a minimum they must know what they are going to be subjected to and what the consequences of their choices may be. After that, the consequences they are subjected to ought to be the minimum necessary to achieve to achieve some reasonable, well documented public purpose. Finally the net benefit of such purposes for the vast majority of people should exceed the personal cost.

      So in this case I'd ask (1) are people really aware of what these machines can do and *might* do? (2) Do these machines serve a legitimate purpose, and do they work? (3) Are they the minimum possible intrusion needed to do the job? (4) Are they a net benefit to most people, and what are the other choices of people who have reason to avoid them?

      That gives me a pretty good sense for whether these machines are good policy. It seems to me that the biggest questions with them are (1) what exactly *could* they do and (4) are the really a net benefit to most people? As far as the minimum intrusion standard is concern, I suspect that no equally effective method will be much less intrusive. The question is whether obtaining that much information is of net use to most people involved.

      That's not such a "clear bright line" standard as "dignity is an essential human right"; it's just more workable. I don't disagree with your sentiment about dignity, but it's a better guide of private conduct than public policy.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      I only wish that were true. They've managed to exempt themselves and their families (and a few foreign dignitaries) from this indignity. I'm pretty sure you can find most of that in that screening manual that was leaked or improperly redacted or whatever. It was on Slashdot a while back, among other places.

      You didn't actually think they'd put up with being treated like that, did you?

    15. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      but it's a better guide of private conduct than public policy.

      Public policy cannot run against the deep-seated beliefs of its population. Being ashamed of nakedness is so ingrained it's covered in the first chapter of the Bible. Call it taboo, common law, unreasonable search, whatever, it's not acceptable to most people. And the others already make pretty good money at it in the San Franando Valley, so they're unlikely to turn to a life of suicide bombings over it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.

      Or your son's, your daughter's....

    17. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by hey! · · Score: 1

      What if the deep seated beliefs of the population aren't implementable as policy? Or simply nonsense?

      Being ashamed of nakedness is certainly not a fundamental human instinct. We evolved to live naked. Culture taught us to clothe ourselves. You might claim its a bedrock cultural value. But those values change, as we've seen in the erosion of control over personal information. The attitude of many people today toward that would shock people from fifty years ago.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Pics or it won't happen.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      To be fair, our feet are sensitive and have a lot of weight on them for their surface area, men's junk hangs out highly exposed to all of nature's hard, pointy awfulness, and we have almost no hair compared to just about any other mammal. "Evolved to be naked" doesn't seem totally accurate.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    20. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe you, you fucking sex offender.

    21. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by $beirdo · · Score: 1

      That's a slippery slope, and IMHO a very scary opinion. You should reconsider it.

      And since this is "security theater", not real security, the only purpose, public or otherwise, here is to subjugate us, humiliate the individual, and make a mockery of our natural, God-given rights - like Dignity, which is one of them. Ask Amnesty International. Or Wikipedia.

      We have become a nation of cowards, content only to live in abject fear, butchering all of what it has ever meant to be free, and our cowardice will only continue to destroy us.

    22. Re:Dignity is an essential human right. by $beirdo · · Score: 1

      Here's something fascinating: it appears that we in the USA could learn about freedom and human rights from the Germans. The very first sentence in the German Constitution reads:

      "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." (again from Wikipedia)

      Furthermore, and also fascinating:

      " 14(3) of the Luftsicherheitsgesetz, which would have allowed the Bundeswehr to shoot down airliners if they are used as weapons by terrorists, was declared unconstitutional mainly on the grounds of human dignity: killing a small number of innocent people to save a large number cannot be legalized since it treats dignity as if it were a measurable and limited quantity."

      The Germans are absolutely right. What the hell is wrong with our country?

  16. Invisibility Cloak by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Need a shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body so when you step into the scanner, they only see a head and shoes.

    Add: A fluctuating Eye of Sauron where your chest would be that the x-rays can see.

    1. Re:Invisibility Cloak by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, the Eye of Sauron is a prohibited explosive device - all you need to do to set it off is have some hobbit somewhere to throw a magic ring into a volcano.

    2. Re:Invisibility Cloak by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Lead?

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    3. Re:Invisibility Cloak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      My 10-year-old daughter defeated the terahertz scanner by wearing her shiny shirt made out of metallic fabric. It worked much like a Faraday cage - the care tag claims "10% metallic fiber". The TSA booth monitor requested a pat-down of my daughter - and thankfully did a very poor job. Just wait until everyone starts wearing shiny, metallic clothes when flying.

    4. Re:Invisibility Cloak by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      The TSA booth monitor requested a pat-down of my daughter - and thankfully did a very poor job.

      Of the request or the pat-down? And if the latter...you actually allowed some TSA creep to put his hands on your 10 year old?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    5. Re:Invisibility Cloak by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Creep is generally a term reserved for men. I believe only women TSAs can pat down females. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I've never had the opportunity to be patted down in security.

      Excuse me while I find some wood to knock on.

    6. Re:Invisibility Cloak by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Lead would block the x-rays and show a big white blob where my body was and then I'd get an immediate pat down to figure out what was behind the blob.

      I want something that keeps the x-rays traveling forward and into the far sensor so it looks like I'm not standing there at all.

    7. Re:Invisibility Cloak by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Sci-fi predicts real life once again - silver jumpsuits, here we come!

      (good post BTW. Mod parent Informative.)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  17. Duh. by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They probably record every single image generated by those things, and hold it at least until the passenger's flight is over. I don't see why they would do it any other way. It flies in the face of reason. I know they say otherwise, but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public. It's for the greater good, right?

    1. Re:Duh. by The+TSA · · Score: 2, Funny

      They probably record every single image generated by those things, and hold it at least until the passenger's flight is over. I don't see why they would do it any other way. It flies in the face of reason. I know they say otherwise, but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public. It's for the greater good, right?

      The TSA does not lie to the general public, never has, never will. You, on the other hand, are an inch shorter than stated on your job application form and may continue to shrink, should you fail to retract your statement.

    2. Re:Duh. by imarsman · · Score: 1

      That's my main complaint in all of this - increasingly invasive searches, reduction in privacy, all with no counterbalancing accountability. I want people to go to jail if they abuse the power they so freely take for themselves.

    3. Re:Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. As if they would delete what can be potential evidence.

    4. Re:Duh. by cyberworm · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking the exact same thing. What happens when they do find something? Wouldn't they want to use the image as part of their evidence for probable cause (not that they apparently need probable cause, but...). Certainly they aren't going to stop the machine and the security line while they pursue and investigation into something suspicious are they?

    5. Re:Duh. by Kabuthunk · · Score: 1

      Oh, like ISP's aren't supposed to permenantly keep information about you?

      Face it, those images are permenantly saved, tied to your name/facial scan/however else it can be personally identifiable, and can/will be used against you whenever needed.

      Oh, and naturally, all of said data will in due time be lost and thusly leaked online.

      --
      Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
  18. We *should* Store Images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For actual security purposes it would make sense to store images and network the machines. That way after the fact if there is a security lapse they can review someone's scan to see what was missed.

    1. Re:We *should* Store Images by Lusixhan · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Plus if the security lapse is big enough, everyone will be able to review the scans!

  19. Cool! by zmollusc · · Score: 3, Funny

    They can add value by auto-updating everyone's FaceBook page with the latest scan and the new status 'clean'/'hilarious'/'needs liposuction'/'tumescent'/'en route to Gitmo' etc.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    1. Re:Cool! by The+TSA · · Score: 1

      They can add value by auto-updating everyone's FaceBook page with the latest scan and the new status 'clean'/'hilarious'/'needs liposuction'/'tumescent'/'en route to Gitmo' etc.

      That is a really good idea! As soon as we implement it, we'll give you a call to help us test it. Imagine how surprised your family and friends will be when they see your status change to 'en route to Gitmo'!

  20. Anyone wonder... by lattyware · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just get a really, really ugly person to do it. They are not going to be looking.

    --
    -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
  21. With fire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting for someone to have the balls to tag this article as 'killitwithfire'. I wonder how fast the FBI would be knocking on (down) the door...

  22. Hey, can I borrow your cameraphone for a moment? by chiph · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Got a real hot babe going thru the scanner here.
    - TSA Perv

  23. Guy scanning is the only sane one by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    Do you see what some people wear through airports? Really stereotyping their destinations in crazy Hawaiian shirts. At least the guy watching the body scan images sees them as human.

  24. great idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a really good idea, why dont they just put you in a straight jacket and strap you into your seat so when you get on the plane so there is no reason to consider you or anyone a threat. no more long security check lines!

    1. Re:great idea by linhares · · Score: 1

      that's smart. and the cargo area of the plane could be used even further with this.

  25. quasi naked pictures of your children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quasi naked pictures of your children. can anyone say child pornography.

    1. Re:quasi naked pictures of your children by pclminion · · Score: 1
  26. Test mode is enabled ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... automatically when the equipment detects the presence of a particularly well-endowed female.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  27. Forget tin-foil hats by mfnickster · · Score: 1

    Now we evidently need tin-foil underwear!!

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    1. Re:Forget tin-foil hats by siddesu · · Score: 1

      you misunderstand. it is a pretext to remove it from those of us who wear it all the time in the first place.

  28. Putting scanners in US airports... by doomy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How does this stop terrorists who board plans elsewhere and come here (with the thought of blowing up the plane?). These scanners need to be where a terrorist is most likely to board a plane. Thus a push for having them in international airports all over the world would be a much better plan than having them all over the US including tiny domestic airports.

    --
    ...free your source and the rest would follow...
    1. Re:Putting scanners in US airports... by mapuche · · Score: 1

      You know all these measures will be enforced all over the world, right? Every international airport with flights or connections to the US have been adopting all the restrictive measures you already know, so expect scanners in other countries soon.

      I know we (Mexico) have body scanners for several years now but they were sent to the airport warehouse because of misbehaviour of the security officials, this has been documented.

    2. Re:Putting scanners in US airports... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the 9/11 terrorists boarded here in the US.

      Granted, this is a knee jerk reaction to somebody coming from outside, but that's the argument they'll use.

    3. Re:Putting scanners in US airports... by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1
      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    4. Re:Putting scanners in US airports... by AgentPhunk · · Score: 1

      I just came back from a trip to Dubai. Here's the order of screening that I went through:

      Arrived at airport: All bags scanned just to get into ticketing area.
      Pre-ticketing: a guy asked me the usual questions like "did I pack my own bags", and "did anyone ask you to bring anything with you" but also "did you have any electronic items repaired here during your stay", and others that I had never been asked anywhere before. I found them to be good questions with a proper security focus.

      Got tickets, checked one bag and had a carry-on (backpack) with me.
      1st / general screening: they checked ticket, passport, and carry-on was run through one scanner. Shoes went through too.
      Gate screening: same set of questions, passport double-checked, and then belt off, shoes off, everything through scanner. Then I got a FULL (i.e. 'turn your head and cough') pat-down. Then they hand-checked everything in my backpack, flex-tested my shoes, threw out my bottle of (post-1st-screening-purchased) water, etc. More questions that I will not post here, but about the same as the 1st screening.

      So, to answer your question, even if you board somewhere else, before you get on a US-bound plane you can expect another more intrusive screening.

      Afterwards on the plane I had a discussion with, literally, the 'little old lady from Topeka' who said "I know they're trying to catch terrorists, but how am I a risk when I can barely catch my breath!"

      I would much rather see them implement behavior, history, and/or risk-based screening than the "one-screen-fits-all" approach they use now.

  29. privacy by MrBrainport · · Score: 1

    In 10 years everybody can buy cheap "sunglass" with similar functionality, so if you like privacy then it's indeed time to invest in shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body :-)

  30. Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    C'mon now, all this talk about celebrities and hacking those "high-profile" images. Please. Most celebrities don't bother with this now.

    Let's see, I'm a celebrity making millions. Do I A) Pay $1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my "naked" image, or B) Realize I have enough "ah, fuck it" money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I don't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.

    1. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...horny airport scanner operator...

      Are you saying it is possible to get sexually aroused by these images? Are you serious?

      I know someone will come along with the "different strokes for different folks" argument, but don't be a pedant jackass. These images are not sexually explicit.

      An invasion of privacy, probably so. But that is the only intelligent argument you can possibly make about the entire whole-body-scanner discussion.

    2. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of them are only famous because of their sex tapes anyway....

    3. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say the Internet has proven that somebody can get sexually aroused by anything.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by angryphase · · Score: 1

      Pubic - Public : Parapraxis

    5. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by dkf · · Score: 1

      Let's see, I'm a celebrity making millions. Do I A) Pay $1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my "naked" image, or B) Realize I have enough "ah, fuck it" money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I don't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.

      We need the TSA to run "proper" security for General Aviation! Quick, write to your congresscritter!

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    6. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      These images are not sexually explicit.

      Oh, really?

      Or do you mean the PR images over overweight middle-aged people with the private parts obscured by overexposure blooms? Clearly those must be representative and average, the government used them in press releases!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by CompMD · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big celebrity and I've given up flying commercially domestically. I either borrow my friend's airplane or rent one.

    8. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Well, here's a picture of the Jonas Brothers in a security line at LAX. Here's one of Paris Hilton at LAX. Here is a whole who's-who of famous celebrities who have gotten in trouble going through standard airport security, including Naomi Campbell, Snoop Dogg, Courtney Love, Whitney Houston, and Paul McCartney. Now, I'm not saying they're treated the same: Whitney Houston had issues because they found a bunch of pot in her carry-on -- but they let her board the plane and keep the pot. Likewise if you're Britney Spears they'll hold your liter-sized container of liquid while you go through security and then give it back to you but the image of rich people only flying in private jets is completely false. They regularly fly on commercial aircraft along with the proles.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    9. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Oh, they're working on it. Here is an article about the TSA refusing aircraft access to people who bought houses beside an airport and paved taxiways to their houses (which used to be a pretty common arrangement: there are lots of small communities built around runways, with each house having a combination hangar/garage.) All small airports are now supposed to have access to the runway and all aircraft controlled by fences and in many cases private security.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    10. Re:Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a developer for these. That image is a bit behind the times. The newest scanners can capture over multiple viewpoints, taking either low penetration z-backscatter x-ray or high penetration transmission-mode x-ray images from different angles. Press a button to start continuous ZBS scanning, optionally TM, or have it do both as the default. I can certainly see why marketing doesn't want to even mention this feature in public because images are WAY more explicit than the low res one of the female linked above. The images are NOT low res. Even our basic model does 1340x880, next gen will be more. Anyway it's basically realtime 3d reconstruction like standing in front of somebody butt naked and being able to spin them around as you want from any angle or move in for close ups. You can fine tune while you view using various image controls like local contrast adjustments, selective feature enhancement, skin outlining, cavities (yup, that's why you lift your arms and spread your legs), etc. Hard to explain in words, easy to understand when you see it in action. I'll say one thing about these images. In 3d, hot females look, err, damn hot! Big news, huh. Funny thing is scans would get repeated like, sorry honey, that one didn't work out, er, we need to do it again, could you do it like this, boobelicious pr0nomatic! Much as I'd love to share, love the job too much.

      I can easily see there being a whole lot of issues letting TSA fool around with stuff like this. One small step for security, one giant leaping boner for TSA! SOP is tell the viewing guy he is on camera and all recorded or another guy is observing him remotely to deter him from crossing any bright lines.

      Been thinking about the significance of higher x-ray doses of 3d and TM. Specs for TM say worst case is several milliSv max per 3d scan depending on which scanning protocol is used but one recent series of tests came up with 25milliSv p/s after removing some 30's and 40's as outliers, been told that's safe enough but personally not so sure. One of the tradeoffs is cutting the x energy and getting lower dose but worse (noisier) images, versus boosting it to avoid losing detail. I figure if OBL ever came in for a scan he's gonna get a TM with energy pumped up to max.

      No idea about security of remote access as I don't work on the comms module, anyway I know it's got rfid and there's a lot of regular 1+1=3 comms guys working on that!

  31. can't be hacked by barry99705 · · Score: 1

    "Further, the TSA says, the machines are not networked and cannot be hacked." That's what they said about the voting machines too.

  32. dogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bomb sniffing dogs are actually more effective than xrays at detecting bombs and vastly cheaper. We don't use them much mostly because dog trainers don't hire big shot lobbyists.

    If you're a frequent traveller, you should occasionally request a personal screening because these airport xray machines give you about 1/8th your yearly xray limit.

  33. Problem Solved by fast+turtle · · Score: 3, Funny

    just fly naked. If they don't like it, you can claim it's a security related measure.

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    1. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that they will still need to anal probe you at the very least ?

    2. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bit much. Just show up in only a bathrobe. It would make the regular strip search so much quicker. Plus it would go with your towel (you do always carry a towel when traveling, right?)

      If you select the electronic equivalent of a strip search instead, I was thinking the only fair thing to do would be for the operators in the back room to be naked. That way there is less chance of them bringing a cell phone camera or other recording device into the room unnoticed. We must insure that security is perfect.

      I don't see why they would mind, given that we've been strongly assured that the people in that room would be hidden from the view of the passengers being screened.

  34. No crap! by /dev/trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial. And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented. Well. Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.

    You don't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.

    1. Re:No crap! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Why would they need the image from the scanner? If they see something suspicious the person will be searched and then whatever they find on them will be admissible as evidence. If they don't find anything then there wouldn't be reason for a trial.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:No crap! by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

      "But your honor - those TSA goons planted that weapon / explosives on me! There was no evidence that it was on me before I was searched!"

      (Yes, I know the article is about Slovakia police planting the explosives, not TSA, but it's not as far-fetched as it now seems, right?)

    3. Re:No crap! by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      The TSA doesn't one of these scanners to frame you. They just need to scribble some S'es on your boarding pass to single you out for additional screening. Or they can plant something in your checked luggage after you drop it off.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:No crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep watching TV, son. They present the TSA personnels' account, and the results of the subsequent strip-search. This scanner is just an alarm bell. Copies of the the scan are not needed for court.

    5. Re:No crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't, they have the evidence that they got from you. They don't need a picture of it, what's the use ?

    6. Re:No crap! by henrik.falk · · Score: 1

      That something they catch said guy with, that would be the evidence.

    7. Re:No crap! by Akral · · Score: 1

      Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial. And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented. Well. Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.

      You don't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.

      Um, no.
      After the scanned image shows danger, the operator pushes big red button with huge "ALARM" written on it and the security officers do a complete search of the person in question, having at least two witnesses nearby. They document everything they have found and use THAT as an evidence.
      A shitty image of shitty quality can not be a serious evidence anyway.

      --
      Don't worry, be happy!
    8. Re:No crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would assume that if you "catch a guy with something" then you've got the something - that sounds like pretty good evidence to me.

    9. Re:No crap! by calderra · · Score: 1

      In other news, my wife and her mom just walked up and watched the full-body scanning for a while the other day until a TSA goon screamed obscenities and threatened to have them arrested. Totally secure though.

    10. Re:No crap! by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Who's to say it wasn't planted by the cops?

    11. Re:No crap! by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      and they never frame people for things.

    12. Re:No crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they catch a guy with something they can probably show the something to the judge. Except maybe a dagger made of ice, I think I read that in a book once

  35. Some can, some can't by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

    Not all celebrities can afford private jets. Lots of important and famous people do fly in first class.

    1. Re:Some can, some can't by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Obama flies in a plane too, so presumably he has to undergo these checks.

  36. Someone should build a website by linhares · · Score: 1
    PedoScanners.com!!!

    For your security needs

  37. Won't somebody think of the children??!!! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "I agree with you generally, but I think there is still another side to this whole thing, which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies."

    So unless you would argue that consistency is not a good thing, clearly you think we should be doing this at every public place where a terrorist could conceivably attack. Your fine with putting these up at elementary schools and subjecting your children to this kind of security theatre, for example, correct?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Won't somebody think of the children??!!! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Some things that I said in my post:

      There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason.... I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one, then it probably is too far.

      So no, I wouldn't say that all rules should be applied consistently all the time. I'm saying that we should apply these sorts of rules carefully, based on context, and it should be to some degree subject to what people believe to be acceptable. The rules for going to school vs. walking down the street vs. going to an event where the President will be present vs. sitting in your own home might each have different levels of security. That's fine and expected, and we shouldn't pretend that all of these situations are the same, or that the rules of one context must apply in all contexts.

      Further, I'm not saying that these scanners are OK. I'm saying that I don't think I would personally be bothered by these scanners any more than I am by having my luggage scanned, emptying my pockets, taking off my shoes, walking through a metal detector, and having a security guard pat me down. Add all that up, and it doesn't bother me *personally* more to also be scanned in this way. However(!), I think that if most other people have a problem with being scanned this way, then it shouldn't be allowed.

  38. Test mode additional hardware :) by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Rumor has it that "test mode" consists of a hard drive and a NIC.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Test mode additional hardware :) by linhares · · Score: 1

      how bout flickr.com?

    2. Re:Test mode additional hardware :) by tftp · · Score: 1

      Chances are good that the scanner's computer is just a Windows PC. How much money would it take to duplicate PC hardware and Windows, and what would be the purpose of such an expense? Sometimes you must go embedded - for example, when your computer flies to Mars. But when it's sitting in an airport there is no reason to go crazy. Get a PC, install a PCI (or USB nowadays) acquisition card, and get creative with the software. That's how things are done today, that's where the value is.

  39. That settles it for me by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    I was initially ambivalent about scanners and pretty much said, "hey, it's not like they're storing the images." Test Mode my ass. If they have the ability, they are using the ability. Next, we'll hear about machines "accidentally" left in test mode during real-world usage. There is absolutely no reason to store these images.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  40. Wait a minute. Who is the perv again??? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1, Troll

    "Hey, can I borrow your cameraphone for a moment? Got a real hot babe going thru the scanner here.
    - TSA Perv"

    If you see a really hot babe going through the scanner and don't get the urge to grab a camera, then you're the perv.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  41. An alternate solution by Corwyn_123 · · Score: 1

    Scrap the old technology, forget people scanners, just make everyone have to strip to get on the plane. That's it, no clothes past the security check point. Few will be able to easily hide anything, and it'll definitely make flying more fun.

    While you're at it, no carry on luggage at all. You strip at security, your clothes are put through the same xray as carry on used to be, then bagged and put on as checked luggage, you get it back after you land.

    I love this idea!!!

    1. Re:An alternate solution by linhares · · Score: 1

      Scrap the old technology, forget people scanners, just make everyone have to strip to get on the plane. That's it, no clothes past the security check point. Few will be able to easily hide anything, and it'll definitely make flying more fun. While you're at it, no carry on luggage at all. You strip at security, your clothes are put through the same xray as carry on used to be, then bagged and put on as checked luggage, you get it back after you land. I love this idea!!!

      Awesome idea! Reminds me of something they did in Germany

  42. Nice try, but by toby · · Score: 1

    That's exactly what does happen, even at border control. Pay a little extra, and you can preserve a little more dignity. Ask any billionaire.

    Then you get to decide how far this fact (paying money for different treatment by authorities) offends your ideology.

    --
    you had me at #!
  43. And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This still won't stop those terrorists who skip the security line and put a little thought into their actions.

  44. Can... by smaddox · · Score: 1

    Not to mention destroy your DNA, and give you cancer.

    1. Re:Can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is by far my biggest concern... I mean even at the dentist you get covered with some type of protection against the Xrays. This equipment somehow bypasses the risks involved with radiation and disturbing our DNA? This to me should be the biggest concern.

  45. I could fly naked but I prefer my DNA zipped by matrixskp · · Score: 1

    The real issue for me is not that these scanners are unzipping our clothes, but that they may be unzipping our DNA. A study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico shows that terahertz waves could

    "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."

    Genes not properly expressed during replication can lead to lots of terrible diseases like Autism and Alzheimer's. Can we refuse the radiation and ask for a strip search instead?

  46. Here comes Tali-Boy by gearloos · · Score: 1

    Tali-Boy This months centerfold is a faceless chick with a hella body oh and a dynamite belt... Wait till you see the spread where she plays with just one stick! LOL sry /. I had to do it

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  47. Re:Wait a minute. Who is the perv again??? by indiechild · · Score: 1

    Looking at those sample scanner pics, I can't see how anyone could look hot in those. It's kinda like drooling over x-ray pics -- not the greatest turn-on, really.

  48. Vote with your wallets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never. flying. again. /fuck them where it hurts, seriously.

  49. Re:Hey, can I borrow your cameraphone for a moment by mariushm · · Score: 1

    Just wait until they find out there are actually watches with built in cameras that can even shoot videos: http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/watches/b550/ or even as a ball point pen : http://www.camerapen.org/ or as a keychain that looks like your car keys : http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20090524/keychain-car-key-security-spy-camera/

  50. Seems like media hype by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

    Apparently this storage option is only available in Test Mode according to TFA, and only that mode allows the storage of images.

    From TFA:
    " A TSA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official is not authorized to speak on the record said all full-body scanners have "strong privacy protections in place" and are delivered to airports 'without the capability to store, print or transmit images.' "

    "There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode," the official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate."

    "Further, the TSA says, the machines are not networked and cannot be hacked."

    "The TSA officer viewing the image cannot see the actual passenger. No cameras, cell phones or other devices capable of capturing an image are allowed in the room where the image is displayed, according to the TSA. The agency adds that images are deleted from the system after the operator reviews them. And employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal."

    I happen to think this is more media trying to feed the frenzy and grab ratings. The whole idea about privacy in an airport is stupid IMO. They can already go through your bag and find any private items that you like to take on your Bahama vacation. This illusion of privacy at an airport is just that. The scanners are necessary and would hopefully eliminate a lot of stupidity that passengers and the TSA must go through in the security checkpoints. Any pink bits that some person has, will look just like the pink bits from the other hundreds or thousands of people that pass through the scanner that day. Unless your John Holmes, I doubt anyone would be impressed or horrified. From what I saw, you end up with this weird metal looking skin, with no easy way to identify the person in the image in any case.

    Who cares if they can see your dick, fat rolls, or tits on a metal skinned image that doesn't even resemble a human?

    Note, the images from the following link may not be considered as work safe as they depict weird sort of android nudity with full junkage:

    http://partnerofapilot.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/tsa-l-3s-xxx-rated-airport-scanner-pictures/

  51. I have a question about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suppose an elderly airline passenger is wearing his adult diaper (recently used), will they be pulled out of line and made to display their crap to TSA employees? I mean, wouldn't that look a lot like our nigerian friends special underpants? Is this just another excuse to harass the incontinent?

    Will very fat people be asked to lift and display what's under their folds? I've seen people who could hide quite a lot in their sweaty crevices, Why I bet the average /. reader could be hiding a very dirty bomb on their person for sure that wouldn't be detected by these machines. What would this scanner detect on this woman. There's a lot on her that is (and would be best left) unseen by such a device.

    This, like every other measure taken, seems only to harass and annoy regular people. These are people representing several government organizations, who when told that someone is planning a terrorist attack by that persons father, and that person pays cash, buys a one way ticket and checks no bags, they can't be troubled to ensure that he doesn't get on a plane. But up untill 2008, made very sure that Nelson Mandella couldn't board a US bound plane? This is just crazy. Makes me want to pull my hair out at the thought of handing these people new tools when the basic tool of common sense has been long abandoned and replaced with seemingly random regulations and rules.

    As Frank Zappa said, "America is a nation of laws; Poorly written and randomly enforced"

  52. It's called evidence... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

    News at 11

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    1. Re:It's called evidence... by aldld · · Score: 0

      If they see something suspicious from the scanner, they could just, you know, search them some more. Then just use the stuff they find as their evidence.

    2. Re:It's called evidence... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      You might have noted that on Federal Reservations that entry is consent to be searched, much as driving is implied consent to be tested for intoxication/impairment; however, "Probable Cause" is always a good thing to have on your side when you go to court for an evidentiary hearing eg: "Your Honor, we could not determine the exact nature of the item shown by the scanner but as you can plainly see from the image this item does not conform to any particular body part, common medical item or prosthetic or item of clothing and prompted us to conduct a complete search of the individual and we discovered (insert name of contraband here ->) a/an _________ .

      Perhaps not required under "implied consent" but always good to have a backup.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  53. Sure it does by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it pisses you off enough to stop flying, then do so. Also, if you do stop flying, make sure to let the airlines know. You can send a letter to all the ones you use, but in particular any you have a frequent flier program with. Send them something like:

    "I regret to inform you that as of this date, I will no longer by flying on your airline. The reason for this has nothing to do with your company or the service I receive, but rather with the onerous, arbitrary, ineffective, and demeaning security theater inflicted on passengers before we are allowed access to flights. I cannot suffer it any longer, and thus am no longer flying until such time it has been rectified. I suggest you let congress know that this security theater is costing you business."

    Guess what? If people start doing that, shit will change. The airlines will notice sales falling, the letters will give them a big reason why (companies know for every person that writes a letter there are generally many that feel the same way but don't) and they'll lean hard on congress. They give big dollars, and as is obvious from past bailouts, congress considers the important. If the air carriers push hard enough, congress will yank on the TSA's chain and stop this crap.

    Do remember that your vote for political candidates is not your only vote in this country. Voting with your wallet is exceedingly effective in many situations. Make the airlines feel the pain, and they'll tell congress to fix it.

  54. Conductive fabric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The stuff is mostly used for RF shielding and occasionally used for wearable electronics and other niche applications. The current market is pretty limited because of it's expense, but I can just imagine the demand taking off and the prices finally becoming reasonable.

    Screw the tin-foil hats, nickel plated boxers are the ticket.

  55. Poor Barbie and Ken by sparky1974 · · Score: 1

    Next they'll require us to produce copies of ourselves without "parts" to prevent our children or the public from being exposed to accidental exposures of our scans on the net. I agree we need to use due-diligence but this seems like overkill for the problem and a stomp in the face. Just wait, next up there will be funding allocated for a scanner upgrade which actually detects morale intent or can read our minds. Where do we draw the line?

  56. Snap a pic with your cell phone camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A TSA employee will just copy the images with his cell phone camera and auto upload them to the internet. This still leaves the other hand free to jack off under the table.

  57. Arse by zxsqkty · · Score: 1

    Posting to undo fucked up moderation.

    Note to self: Don't moderate whilst drinking Lagavulin.

    --
    Caution: May contain nuts.
    1. Re:Arse by zxsqkty · · Score: 1

      Note to self II: Fuck moderating, drink more Lagavulin...

      --
      Caution: May contain nuts.
    2. Re:Arse by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Note to zxsqkty: share more.

      I'll bring the Bunahabhain and the MacAllan.

      (totally unrelated: within my circle we refer to Lagavulin as "smells like wet dog, tastes like old tires")

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  58. Think of the Children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and the transmission of nude pictures of kids around government departments!

  59. Public Domain? by kencf0618 · · Score: 1

    Legal Tangent Department:

    TSA agents being federal employees, I have the entertaining hypothesis
    that that much-ballyhooed graphic imagery would fall under the aegis of
    public domain, inasmuch as it's "a work prepared by an officer or
    employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official
    duties."

    Presumably it's a different story if contractors are looking at your
    bits, of course. :/

  60. Look behind you. by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

    The terrorists are already in your country, eating your food, watching your TV, waiting for the call to awake.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  61. Not so slim. by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

    Oh noes, suddenly wearing black clothing is no longer slimming. All the nerds forced to fly in the future will be cueing up to buy girdles.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  62. Alright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, just get hired and wait for the first V.I.P. to pass by and..........

  63. We Do It Wrong by Xeleema · · Score: 1

    Rather than strip-search everyone, rifle thru their bags, steal their travel-sized hygiene products and lighters, why don't we just pull a full-stop on all this "Security Theater" B.S. and do a total 180; Imagine walking into an airport, grabbing your ticket, and being issued a Glock with low-grain, soft-head rounds (I'm thinking about something that can't pass thru a hull). Heck, it's already been shown that a bullet-sized hole at 30,000 feet doesn't cause explosive decompression. Let's just throw in a few hollow-points. I guarantee the next guy that stands up and screams "Dirka, dirka! Muhammad Jihad!" would have a *very* interesting story to tell his lil harem in the after life.

    --
    "When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
  64. Is this really important to anyone? by z_gringo · · Score: 1

    I SO don't care about this. I think reporters are just trying to make a story out of this and there is really no story to tell. Is ANYONE out there really worried about what happens to these images? I know that I don't give a crap.

    what I do care about is being able to just walk up to my gate. Why can't the TSA try to do something we do care about? Which is to walk up to the gate without taking off my shoes, belt, suit jacket, removing my laptop from the bag, etc. They can put scanners everywhere if they want to. Put images on the internet, post them on screens as entertainment at the airport just do something that will let me simply walk up to my gate without going through a bunch of pointless security procedures.

    The TSA is more concerned about making themselves look relevant than they are about making travel safe and convenient. I am sure the technology exists that will allow us to walk right up to the gates and they can know whether someone poses a threat or not, and that it could be done with a lot less TSA agents than we have now. But we will never hear about that, because the TSA isn't in the business of making the TSA smaller.

    --
    -- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
  65. Apologies for the Failblog link, but... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1
    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  66. Re:Wait a minute. Who is the perv again??? by mariushm · · Score: 1

    It doesn't have to be hot, it can be just a pretext... it can be a movie star that maybe has pierced nipples or maybe she had a mastectomy and the TSA employee will be more than happy to sell a picture to TMZ or whatever gossip blog

  67. Interesting point! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These scanners reflect off of skin. So if you're a fatass, what's keeping you from going through the scanner with explosives (similar to what the "underwear bomber" used - no metal, no smell) tucked between your fat rolls? Way less uncomfortable and way more capacity than anal storage...

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  68. Dear TSA by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    You've gone too far. I won't be flying any longer.

    sincerely,
    a citizen

    --
    Reply to That ||
  69. D'oh by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    s/you can take/you can't take/g

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  70. Think of the children! by BaseSequence · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight: the TSA will have a bunch of machines displaying pictures of naked children? Aren't there laws against that?

  71. I'm done with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't flown in years. Family of four, and now we have to pay for our BAGS too. Plus the draconian security measures. I'll take the train or drive, thank you very much. I know I can't take the train overseas, but oh well.

  72. TWO great memes in one! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    queue flash animation of goatse shitting prime-numbered bombs in 5... 3... 2...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  73. easy solution by jcgam69 · · Score: 1

    Code the scanner software to automatically blur the face. The resulting images will then be essentially anonymous.