Slashdot Mirror
Denials Aside, Feds Storing Body Scan Images
The new generation of body scanners employed at airports (and many other places) can record detailed, anatomically revealing pictures of each person scanned, which is one reason they've raised the hackles of privacy advocates as well as ordinary travelers. Now, AHuxley writes "The US Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer that 'scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.' It turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images. The US Marshals Service admitted that it had saved ~35,314 images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.
The images were stored on a Brijot Gen2 machine. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction to stop the TSA's body scanning program."
All that needs to be said here is that we are dealing with a software-driven platform.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction to stop the TSA's body scanning program.
And when that doesn't work, EPIC failed!
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
It's all the young, beautiful 16 to 19 1/2 year-old females who are all alone and need protection from the strong DHS.
Get some enterprising hacker to release those 30k pics. If some schoolkids visited the courthouse, we'll see which is stronger: "think of the children!" or "think of the terrists!"
Since the original request for the system included "the ability to store and transmit" said images, this is no surprise. Any computer that has the "Print Screen" button on the keyboard can copy an image. Since the TSA scanned a 12 year old girl, why aren't child pornography charges being brought up on them?
The TSA (part of DHS) says their not recording images of people entering the airport, but the US Marshalls (part of DoJ) are.
So folks are suing the TSA? It seems to me that you'd actually want to sue the US Marshalls instead.
So, what kind of marker do I need to purchase to leave a few messages of what I think about the TSA on my special parts next time I go through the airport?
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
How can I spot one of these machines? How does it differ in appearance from a metal detector?
Whose body were they storing when they scanned the images?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I was recently coming off a cruise into the Miami port, and was 'randomly' selected to go through one of these. I'm a young fit woman, not travelling alone, and was not wearing bulky or loose clothing- so why the selection?
Anyway, I expressed upset at the process and the security guard person guiding me through said that only one person sees the image, they can't see me, I can't see them, and that the image is deleted immediately after I am 'passed' through and no weapons are detected.
I doubt even the people operating these things know what's going on.
Dirty, dirty, dirty...
Holy happy hippy crap!
currently written to store images, if it gets on the screen, you have a bitmap right there and just have to write it to a file. Making that modification might take a few man-hours for a system that probably took dozens of man-years to create in the first place.
Doesn't even take any modification. Alt-Print Screen, paste into image software, click save, post on internet, ????, profit.
... they'll show up at porn sites real soon. You just need one perverted US Marshal with a USB memory stick, the Internet will do the rest.
The US Marshals Service admitted that it had saved ~35,314 images
Wow! That many cute chicks have walked through their scanners?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I'm sure they are only saving the 'really good ones.'
So there's nothing for any slashdot denizen to worry about.
The problem is, we aren't going far enough to protect ourselves. These measures, while a considerable improvement over metal detectors, are still a far cry from what we need if we want to be secure. Here is what I propose:
Upon entering any government building, or attempting to enter an airport terminal, all citizens will directed to secure rooms where they will be required to strip off all of their street clothes. These clothes will then be sent for analasys for any chemical agents, explosives, etc. and burned or disposed of if there are any suspicious substances on them. Visitors/travellers will then be issued a standard robe and slippers, after the invasive strip search and full body x-ray.
At this point, if boarding an aircraft, passengers will be led to their seats and have an I.V. hooked into their arms. They will be kept sedated for the duration of the flight, and then wheeled out while still unconcious to recover in specially designated rooms. If there is a connecting flight, then of course staff will wheel them onto that flight, while still unconcious.
Upon exiting the terminal or government building, citizens will have their personal effects returned to them, minus anything destroyed or detained due to suspicious chemical markers or anti-government slogans or anything else the government feels that it is in the citizen's best interest to remove from their possesion.
I know all of this seems like it might be expensive, but hey, isn't it worth it to be safe?
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
The party involved seems to be the US Marshals at a court house.
The TSA seems to be speaking only for themselves for airports.
Is this Florida court house also an airport? Or located inside an airport?
Am I having a problem with logic or is it the article?
Shouldn't the poster be GOrwell? Wouldn't it be even more appropriate!
I had my first millimeter wave radar scan at the Denver airport when traveling last weekend. I thought it was rather interesting, but wasn't impressed by their insistence that I had something in my pockets, until I turned them inside out to show they were empty.
Necron69
From the article:
"For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: 'The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events.'"
Since when did the Fourth Amendment provide exemptions for "the end justifies the means" situations? (Which is a separate argument altogether).
To claim that an effective strip search without probable cause, hot pursuit, or arrest is in any way not a violation of the Fourth Amendment is a bold and likely incorrect point of view. The issue of consent is probably a critical issue here. Perhaps one doesn't have to travel by air; but when the issue may be to lose one's job for refusing to complete a business trip, perhaps then defaulting on a mortgage, & etc, or to "consent" to a millimeter wave search... That sounds more like extortion.
Not to say that the Constitution has never been violated before, but let us not deceive ourselves as to what we are doing.
Apart from the fact that this whole thing is ethnically ill-conceived, I will never believe it's going to be safe against being exploited in any way. Regardless of whether or not these machines are capable of storing actual images, the operator would always find a way to 'store' body scanner images given enough incentive. Imagine those images surfacing on the web, showing some child, some known celebrity - imagine the lawsuits, imagine the public outcry...
The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible...
Yeah, go maximum extend your mom!
Humans will always find a way - This shit is bound to fail simply given the troubled nature of the ordinary human being...
Seriously, make the perversion jokes if you must, but I don't think most Americans have any idea what's even being discussed here.
The TSA should allow a small sample, say 5 each male and female, various ages, of un-filtered un-redacted (but anonymous) full-resolution images available for a trusted third party to post on their website. It could be a newspaper, a travel mag, Consumer Reports, whatever, but an unbiased supervisor needs to be responsible for the authenticity.
There's not even enough information available here to have an informed debate, just a few down-sampled 'privacy filtered' press images.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I can't see getting excited about millimeter wave images. Big deal. You get to see the body outline. Compared to Z-backscatter X-ray images, they don't even show very much.
I'd rather go through a millimeter wave scanner at nightclubs than be pawed by the security goons.
I'm not sure what the legal definition of child porn is, or whether these machines violate that statute. But if a teenage kid can get in trouble for snapping a nude pic of himself, then I'd think the legal limit is fairly low.
We need an undershirt with metalic paint (or anythign that shows up as high contrast in those scanners) in big block letters that says "Fuck You TSA."
I'd love to see a new market for Anti-TSA underwear.
That's a nice story, but let's look at reality: when government fails, the people responsible aren't fired and the budget isn't cut -- most often they are rewarded with even more power and revenue. In the business of government, failure isn't a reason to stop spending or consolidating power into the hands of the elite few. It's the exact opposite: a justification for more spending and more power over the people. The reason for failure is never that the idea was bad and unjust in the first place; the reason is a lack of power and revenue.
There's a reason why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people -- and it's not because they have a policy of cutting losses clean. In the business of government, failure is opportunity.
...recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single ***Florida courthouse***
Showing up in court is not a decision one makes. When you get a subpoena, you end up in court one way or another.
I'm waiting for somebody to "Strike A Pose" and do "Cheesecake Shots" on these scanners and its guaranteed to make the rounds on the net.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
When are they going to be added to that grey-skinned body-blob hot-or-not site that was featured here a few months ago?
Every time we get the old line "we won't do that because it will infringe on your rights" from politicians, government agencies, law enforcement and all the likes, it should be a red light to all that they will most certainly abuse whatever it is and overwhelming infringe on your rights. Why we continue to put up with politicians that don't represent us and sell us down the river is astounding. At least recently people have woken up to the fact that the government and the politicians in it love to gain power over the masses in some sort of control freak way for anything from making money off it to appeasing corporate campaign contributors all for their own gain.
The government needs to be once again a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
I just don't see any political will to defend privacy.
I wonder how long till there are undergarments and clothing designed to block these scans?
I know I will refuse to fly as long as these invasive body scanners are in place... Until clothing that blocks it comes out.
they cannot use software to make the display be like those displayed in Arnold's Running Man movie.
It cannot be hard to remove the human part of the picture and leave the rest... and just "animate the human"
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
No expensive scanners are needed. You show up at the airport five or six hours before your flight and are subjected to a number of interviews. The interviews are supposed to make you nervous and uncertain. The results are evaluated by people that are watching on video and have lots of experience.
Never once has anyone gotten explosives onto a plane from or to Israel, dispite incredible efforts and plenty of motivation. In many circles the only good Jew is a dead Jew and there are plenty of volunteers that would be happy die - as long as they can take lots of Jews with them.
In the US the problem is somewhat more diffuse. We hear about people doing stupid things with explosives which are designed to make us think that all Muslim extremests are idiots. The people that do not tell us about aren't idiots - but we will never know if the TSA is doing anything effective or not. That is part of their charm - secret success or secret failure both add up to a certainity by the traveling public that the TSA (They'll Steal Anything) is just a bunch of yahoos that are just being a nuisance. Keeping what they have (or have not) found a secret is a huge mistake that goes beyond just PR problems.
In Ohio, it's called Illegal use of minor in nudity-oriented material and it's a felony unless you can prove you have a "proper interest" in the material.
To stop storing images.
AND to delete all existing images.
AND modify the system to prevent storing images in the future.
AND submit to an independent audit to verify that this is done. On a regular basis. And reported to the court.
Not that this suprises me at all. We should expect this, and then go to court and fight it.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
My understanding was that this was instead of a pat down, so you have the option of the manual pat down (presumably by someone of the same sex) instead.
I suggest purchasing these. Would also block RFID reading by passer's by though you can get EMF-blocking wallets and passport wallets for that too. I suspect these might block the TSA scanners: http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I wonder how many of those ~35,000 images are of people under the age of 18.
Its just a matter of time before some images of children from these perv-scanners end up on some pedos computer.
I for one am going to start wearing shielded undergarments. I'm fine with being strip searched, I'll just keep up a running dialog asking the TSA reps if there getting off on it. I expect I'll end up on the No-Fly list.
What we need is Barbara Streisand to walk through one and have it escape onto the internet. That would be fun.
Reply to That ||
Yes, if you strip in front of them and go through NAKED you get arrested. No pleasing these perverts, yes perverts because that is all they are. I bet they get wet sticking CHILDREN through them. Any childrens pictures stored on them? It is illegal here (not in theUS) to even take a CLOTHED PICTURE of a CHILD without parental concent. This was a big issue in English airports (Birmingham, Manchester etc) as it constitutes PORNOGRAPHY and CHILD ABUSE and potential CHILD GROOMING.
The operator only need take out his cell phone to snap a picture of the system's screen while he is looking at it.
If a human eye can see (or hear) something, it can be recorded. Some call it the analog hole.
It won't be found by a backscatter machine. So the point is moot. The images only go skin deep, and no deeper. My daughter has a bunch of metal in her, and it doesn't see any of it.
Nice try though.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Oh sure, you say that know, but when the first vagina grenade goes off on a crowded plane, what will you say?
The problem here is body scanners wouldn't detect a vagina bomb in the first place. They only penetrate roughly 1/10th of an inch below the skin. Ironically, the explosives sniffers WOULD detect it but typically aren't being used in areas "protected by" body scanning devices.
Oh sure, you say that know, but when the first vagina grenade goes off on a crowded plane, what will you say?
These scanners would not detect a grenade inside someone. Either the vaginal or anal cavity would 100% shield a grenade from these scanners. They are LESS secure than the metal detectors....
I'm not arguing for this type of scanning, but I don't care if people want to look at my penis. [...] But that's just me.
While some people are comfortable with this particular invasion of privacy, clearly many others are not. There are probably things in life that many other people would find acceptable that you personally would find unacceptable too. First they came for the Communists...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm not arguing for this type of scanning, but I don't care if people want to look at my penis. I kind of enjoy showing it off. I imagine you can find images of it in Google Image Search already anyway, so it's not like a scan would be show anything new.
Ah. You must not be new to ChatRoulette.
I've been doing quite a bit of traveling lately, and every time when confronted with one of these machines, I've chosen the alternative pat-down (it's your right, you can request this). Why? I simply don't trust them for the radiation exposure despite the claims that they are safe. I have NEVER seen them allow an infant through these systems--they just wave the mother/father around the device with the infant in their arms (and with no alternative pat-down for the parent...). If the TSA will not allow infants through the system, obviously they don't think the exposure levels are completely safe. So anyway, sure, the alternative pat-down is super-invasive, but at least you avoid accumulated exposure. I only travel 5-6 time/year max., but for folks that might travel several times per month, I can imagine the accumulated exposure over many years will not be completely benign. A side effect of requesting an alternative pat-down is that it seems to throw the system into convulsions. They start radio'ing around about needing somebody to deal with the "refuser", and waiting for someone to arrive can be either fast/immediate or slow (like 5+ minutes). For being a "refuser", besides the pat-down, you seem to obligatorily get swabbed/analyzed for explosive residue. All in all, if just one person every few minutes were to request such an alternative pat-down, it would overwhelm the system. The problem with this is that they then just start waving people through to avoid clogging the pipes. So these people get a metal detector only--not a pat-down nor the full-body scan. If they just let people through like this, well, what is the whole purpose of this anyways???
For those curious, apparently body jewelry shows up quite well on these things. Not sure how a nipple ring can be considered worthy of a pat down, but it is. I imagine a few thoughtfully placed dermal anchors would allow one to have fun with the wave scanners.
Due to my decorations, I just opt for a pat down now, saves me time and having to answer stupid questions.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
The mods are idiots. Your post was modded informative even though it's just about as perfectly wrong as it's possible to be.
You've got that exactly backwards. All pictures of children are illegal child porn if the person in possession uses them for sexual gratification. It's not the content of the pictures that determines their porn-ness; it's the attitude of the buyers, sellers, and possessors.
Google "Dost decision" or any of the on-point cases. Check out the Pierson conviction, a case where the feds admitted that Pierson had never taken a nude or sexually explicit picture *ever*. Yet he still would up convicted of producing child porn because of the way the photos were marketed to borderline pedos.
Or, maybe, you just need to talk to someone who's out on parole after being convicted of child porn possession. Ask them (or, better yet, ask their parole officer) what would happen if they got caught with lubricant, tissues, and the kids section of a J.C. Penny flyer.
You bet your ass they'd be back in prison in a heartbeat, facing new child porn possession charges.
At least, this is how it works in the U.S. Other places in the world, things vary widely. Child porn is more or less legal in most countries. But in the U.S., this is not something you want to fool around with, especially if you're as ill-informed about the law as you appear to be.
The TSA is paying L-3 Communications Holdings about $150,000.00 for each of these scanners. They intend to place at least one at each of 2200 security check points in the U.S. Looks like L-3 (LLL - NYSE) IPO'd at about $14.00 in 1998. Currently trading near $80.00. Go ahead and call your Congressman if you think that will do any good. I'm going to call my broker.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Oh sure, you say that know, but when the first vagina grenade goes off on a crowded plane, what will you say?
I say a metal detector is going to find that grenade. But I don't think they're relly looking for grenades, I think they're looking for cocaine.
I'm not arguing for this type of scanning, but I don't care if people want to look at my penis. I kind of enjoy showing it off.
If it's not big enough to cause you problems (dips in the water when you're shitting, won't fit all the way in some vaginas, etc) it's not anything to brag about, shorty.
Free Martian Whores!
but when the first vagina grenade goes off on a crowded plane, what will you say?
Is it sad that I've watched so much South Park that Hillary Clinton instantly comes to mind?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Oh no... now I'll NEVER find the clitoris!"
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
There are lots of reasons Federal Employees might store images.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
...women were not allowed to vote and not being white was often a dangerous pastime activity.
Or to put it differently, Founding Fathers and their successors have been proven shortsighted or just plain wrong 12 times in the past 100 years.
Also, about a bajilion things happened during that time.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
As someone working on alternate (non-imaging) technologies, this is more than a bit annoying. Why did we chose this system? It's horribly slow, labor intensive, invasive and only helps against idiots who try to carry dense weapons on their person. The "wake-up call" terrorist who made it through metal detector security with a bomb strapped to his leg would also make it through these machines. Way to go.
So who's going to be the first to file a freedom of information act for the images? Sounds like a lot of work for 32K images of blurry pr0n, but I'm sure there's a website for it somewhere.
You choose to get in a car. It's not an unreasonable search when cops demand to see inside your trunk.
Actually it is because that is MY car that is transporting me.
You choose to walk on the sidewalk. It's not an unreasonable search for cops to stop you & pat you down.
Actually it is because I am simply wandering around in public. If they found I had broken into a place or was trespassing without permission then it sure would be reasonable to search me.
You choose to live inside the city limits. It's not an unreasonable search for inspectors to ram the door & enter.
Actually it is because that is MY home.
All of the cases you listed are nothing like the case where you go into a private facility, to board someone else's vehicle. They can put whatever restrictions they like on that, up to an including mandatory anal probes for all travelers, and I would fully support them.
I wouldn't fly mind you, but I would defend to the death their right to do something stupid because after all, it is their plane and not mine.
If people object to wave scans they simply will not fly. But the fact is that not that many people really object to them, as witnessed by the observation that people still fly and 99% of the people asked to use the machines do so as well.
Even knowing they might record them, I simply do not care because I do not see it as that intrusive and frankly think people are way too hung up on nudity as it is.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The size of the government has absolutely nothing to do with the level of corruption in the government.
That's absurd. It's quite obvious that money drives corruption, and the larger the organization the more money at hand for payouts.
If the federal government had very limited funds, you simply would not see things like Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac, or huge multi-billion dollar contracts. You'd see a series of smaller contracts, some of which would be graft but the amount of graft would be much smaller.
That's why the only way to reduce corruption is government is to shut down the pipe of power and money that goes right into the federal system. Reduce the amount of power they have via smaller government, reduce the funding the federal government gets via taxes, and you will see corruption naturally diminish, or at least move state side - but at the state level it's more easily monitored or controlled.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'd like to know what the point of the damn things are, since every post 9/11 attack on an airline has been negated by the efforts of the passengers.
That is actually incorrect - the last one (underwear bomber) was not negated by passengers. He was detained by passengers, yes - but he actually succeeded in what he planned to do - detonate a bomb on a plane over a populated area.
It was not the passengers that made the bomb not work. It was security measures in place that made it necessary to carry such a rube-goldberg bomb that made it more likely to fail (which it did).
I am totally with you that any attack meant to take over a plane (even those with guns) will be stopped by passengers now. But I'm not sure you can realistically reduce the level of security knowing that the current plan is simply to blow up a plane over a large city. And to date, terrorists have basically shown that they try the same thing (attacking the WTC) until something works.
I'm not sure of the best way to target bombers specifically (i'd lean more on behavioral checks), but as absurd as the current security restrictions are they do seem to be forcing terrorists to make rather more complex bombs than they would otherwise if they were able to carry more pre-made components on a plane and thus are more likely to fail. It doesn't even matter if it's really more of a facade than true security as long as the people the security is in place for REACT as though the security were real. And the truth is that even an imperfect security is good enough to make someone change plans when they want a 90% chance of a plan working.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm pretty sure the behavioral analysts they have in airports would spot people staggering from the effects of drinking a significant amount of hydrazine, and I'm not even sure someone who downed a quart of hydrogen peroxide would even be able to walk.. not to mention your own body chemistry may well get in the way enough to prevent the resulting vomit pool from having the intended effect.
Besides, the way the underwear bomber had his materials, the millimeter wave wouldn't have picked up any of that either.
The next time I fly though if I see two people trying to vomit in the same spot I'll be sure to pull one away.... :-)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The amount of radiation from these is less than you get (by a huge amount) from simply spending a day in Denver.
The only reason they don't send infants through is that parents freak out at even the tiniest bit of radiation.
If I had the opportunity to chose a pat-down or a scan where some bored guy I'll never see again gets to peer below my underwear for a second - I'll take the impersonal machine solution every time. I hate pat-downs.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why wouldn't they save them? All the images are saved. I've said it before and I will say it again. If you ever believed otherwise, you are an idiot.
I really don't want anybody peering at my genitals. I doubt very much that anybody dealing with these machines has received any training regarding transgender issues. I suspect it won't be long before there's a publicised incident of a trans person being publicly humiliated. These scanners are intrusion just for the sake of it.
Your Government lied to you.
No! Really?
ya! rly!
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Flying Pasties
And we're supposed to believe that Google accidentally recording a few unencrypted Wifi data packets in their Street View rig is bad?
Can't wait for fedbodyscans.org to pop up!
image? It appears adding this information so that it does not obscure details but is quite difficult to remove may deter whoever from going public with these images. If you find your picture in web and can find out who saved it, you can potentially sue a lot of money from TSA. At least, when an officer performs a search he must wear his badge, and for a good reason. I do not see why operating these scanners should let any officer be anonymous.
And about $50 for that Hottie I saw walking getting on the plane before me last week!
If there was a better use for FOIA than I haven't heard of it!
It wouldn't surprise me if the scans penetrated a little below the skin for extra detail....
Actually, Bush was incredibly incompetent AT religion.
As a christian, one of the things I had faith in was that Bush, as a professed christian, would know enough of the history of his religion to understand that the Middle East is incredibly screwed up all by itself and needs no help from us. I actually remember saying, back in the day, "There's no way Bush would lead us to war in Iraq. No christian with even the slightest understanding of his religious history would dare to get involved in that way in the Middle East. There's just no way. No christian could be that stupid."
OK, so *I* was pretty stupid.
No one who is truly a christian would touch a middle east conflict with a 10,000 foot pole, much less start such a conflict. This is a basic litmus test of Christian competence.
In retrospect, it's no big surprise that Bush failed that test so spectacularly. But I sure was shocked at the time.
...that make me go to the EFF and ACLU websites and donate money. Isn't there any chance that "imaging" citizens in this way is a form of unconstitutional search? Or have we just implicitly waived our rights by entering the airport?