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."

47 of 560 comments (clear)

  1. Of course they can by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All that needs to be said here is that we are dealing with a software-driven platform.

    1. Re:Of course they can by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And as such, this was inevitable. Did anyone honestly think that our government could have any technology without eventually using it to its maximum potential? First, they say that it doesn't really look like they're seeing you nude. Then upon proof that they're lying, they say that it can't store the pictures. Now that there's proof that this isn't true, either, they'll say that the images are only being stored for diagnostic and training purposes.

      Then, when the "Girls Gone Wild JFK Airport Style" video comes out, they'll say that all those people signed release forms. Then, when someone sues because she didn't, they'll pay her off to sweep it under the rug.

      This is one of those cases where the slippery slope is almost inevitable. You have a technology that invades the privacy of people so completely that its abuse is almost unavoidable. Abuse was practically designed into the system. Trying to keep such a system from being abused is like trying to teach a jaguar to be a house cat. Doubly so when that system is in the hands of government agencies that are rarely held accountable by the general public. Triply so when even a cell phone camera is sufficient to abuse the system to horrifying ends. Quadruply so when you're talking about nudie pics.

      Inevitable.

      --

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

    2. Re:Of course they can by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know what happens when we lie about our business activities? We get them taken away.

      If the Feds are going to lie to the American Public about fundamental, important tennants of their new airport security theater, then we should take their toys away. "I'm sorry, you needed what? You should have thought about that before you lied about it."

      Of course the naked photos will never leak. Wait, that's first thing that happened. Well, the public seems comfortable with the idea. Wait, even DUBAI banned them as intrusive.

    3. Re:Of course they can by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Abuse wasn't practically built into the system. It WAS built into the system. You don't need to take a picture of my penis to find out if I'm smuggling a grenade into the courthouse. It, and the rest of me, are non-metallic, and are not composed of explosive compounds. Sniff for explosives, and use a metal detector, just like they've been doing for decades, and you'll be perfectly safe. And the worst part is, TSA, US Marshalls, and the other agencies using these machines KNOW this. They know getting nudie shots of people isn't going to enhance security. It's all security theater, to keep the public believing that they're "protecting" us against a "threat," when really they're grabbing all the authorization for everything they can think of now, while people are still being scared and stupid rather than monitoring the abuses of the government. In short, they want to take naked pictures of you because they can, and because no one is telling them "no."

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    4. Re:Of course they can by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did anyone honestly think that our government could have any technology without eventually using it to its maximum potential?

      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. It seems to me that metal detectors are all you really need -- keep guns off the plane and there's no way that any would-be terrorist is going to overpower dozens of passengers. Heck, even with a gun it would be tough to overpower everybody on an airplane......

      They are also useless from a practical point of view, since they can't scan body cavities. If you are willing to die for your cause it doesn't seem like a huge leap of faith to assume that you are also willing to shove explosives or a weapon up your ass......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Of course they can by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Funny

      +1 for you

      I for one can't wait 'til we get this clown Bush and his Republicans out of office, and a new Democrat administration in place, so they can stop this spying stuff.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Of course they can by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wait you don't think they have a camera pointed exactly at this scanner with a timecode sync. It's trivial to rewind a set of video and find out exactly who you are. Don't think for a second they do not know who is who. Maybe not the drones manning the station but the analyst will definitely have a clue. Now think of a celebrity passing through one of these. All one of the drones needs to know is the time the celebrity crossed the scanner (Yes most use private charters but there is the occasional public figure (Kevin Smith anyone?))

      --
      open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
    7. Re:Of course they can by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I for one can't wait 'til we get this clown Bush and his Republicans out of office, and a new Democrat administration in place, so they can stop this spying stuff.

      I see what you did there... and I like it. A lot.

      Too bad, Obama is a million times worse than Bush on this matter. Bush made it clear that he did not care about your rights at all. Obama said he would bring change and lied.

      A lot of people voted for Obama because they thought he would hold true to his word and try to restore a lot of what we had lost, shut down Gbay, etc. Betrayal hurts a lot more than suffering incompetence and abuse.

    8. Re:Of course they can by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>You don't need to take a picture of my penis to find out if I'm smuggling a grenade

      Precisely. And I find this part of the article funny: "The TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional." The actual constitution says the People shall not be subject to unreasonable searches unless a warrant is obtained. No warrant was obtained, so the next question is: Are virtual strip searches that reveal a man's ballsac and woman's breasts/nipples/vaginal lips a reasonable search?

      Not in my book.

      I would be alright if the private airline wanted to run these scans, since it's their plane, but to allow the government to record these strippings and share them with other agencies that might wish to arrest me ("Oh look - he snuck Seventeen back from europe," says the new pedophile czar) is not acceptable. And it sure as hell isn't constitutional/legal.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Of course they can by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not the point I was trying to make at all. The answer to government abuses is not to kill the government, any more than the answer to a heart attack is to remove the heart. The size of the government has absolutely nothing to do with the level of corruption in the government. Any country with 300 million people and nearly 4 million square miles is going to take a large organization to run it.

      And blindly removing laws isn't going to do any good either.

      The solution is for the public to take an active role in government again, rather than just believing whatever their cable-"news"-moron-of-choice tells them to believe. Instead of running around believing that all "gubmint" is bad, find the actual bad parts, and cut them out. Want to take naked pictures of everyone for no damned reason at all? You're fired, and will be replaced with someone who will do their job properly and without tromping all over our rights.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    10. Re:Of course they can by tiptone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government knows how easy it is to make changes like this. They were just using the argument that the images wouldn't be stored as a lubricant to make the insertion a little easier.

      Maybe you could explain what nefarious purpose the federal government would have for purposely storing these images.

      Remember, the images are not connected to the people's identities in any way. Except for the few seconds where the first TSA worker scans your ID card (and doesn't record anything) everybody who goes through the scanner does so in a random manner. There's no way, currently for them to identify any scan as belonging to any person.

      You suggest that the government is doing this scan-storing on purpose. Give us your best guess as to why.

      Up until, well, still right now, they've denied storing the images which has proven to be false. You think that maybe they're storing the information off of your ID card as well? Seems at least plausible, right?

      --
      Please don't read my sig.
    11. Re:Of course they can by ebuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama has called on people to actually track and rate the honesty of his platform. That's a first amongst presidents (to my knowledge). You can track the results.

      Out of 254 evaluated statements, 208 have been found to be true, in varying degrees. 208 are know to be true, 44 are known to be false. That's a truthfulness rating of about 80%. I don't know about you, but in my book (for a politician) that's incredibly high. Even if you count the "barely true" category as being false, which technically it isn't, then your still left with 176 true to 76 false.

      Out of the 500+ campaign promises, he's only broken 19. Certainly not all promises are weighted equally, but again we are talking about breaking less than 5% of his promises. By scientific testing standards, that's an acceptably low enough number to prove he's keeping his promises.

      He has compromised on 39 of the 500+ campaign promises, which shows that the United States still has a President, and not a Dictator. Even with the compromises added to the broken promises, he's kept or working on keeping 90%+ of his promises.

      Of course, this is the USA, where we ignore facts and vote on the latest smear campaign. At the rate we are going, we will vote in office Sarah Palin. Her numbers are sobering. 27 true items to 13 false items, or about 67% true. Counting the barely true against her (as we did previously) brings the numbers to 22 true to 18 false, a mere 55% truthfulness.

      A more important issue, do you really want your president to be 100% truthful? How fast do you think the economic recovery would progress if the President of the United States motivated the entire nation with, "Well we are totally fucked, and hundreds of millions of people will probably lose their jobs." How do you think we would fare in trade agreements if we said, "We're going to use our status and military power to bully you into giving us a better cut of the pie."? Both of these statements are true, but they much better told in half-truths, ie. "We are working on a plan which will increase our financial stability at home and abroad." and "We feel we could assist you with your problems more if you removed a few trade barriers."

      Blaming Obama for lying is like blaming Obama for being a good negotiator. The fact that he has managed to not lie on 90% of his campaign promises is not just remarkable, it's incredible. In fact, it is so good that Republicans have voted against bills they sponsored to try to decrease his approval rating. They then use that "evidence" as a weakness of the Presidency, knowing full well that the public doesn't associate the passage of laws with Congress, they "feel" the President does it all.

    12. Re:Of course they can by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      Relative to Bush, Obama can move star systems with his mind.

      I understand some people may be offended and think this is trolling, but at least Obama did not commune with Jesus for a month to make a health care related decision or literally interpret the Bible to lead us all.

      Religion aside, Bush was incredibly incompetent anyways.

    13. Re:Of course they can by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was trying to preempt the inevitable "OMG GUNS ARE SCARY" knee-jerk response.

      Guns aren't scary. Idiots who think guns are penis substitutes are scary.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:Of course they can by Score+Whore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Umm. Have you read the promises? Things like "Express an opinion", and "Advocate for something." Neither of which requires anything more than giving a speech. Unlike "Won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000/year" and "No mandate to have health insurance." A bit different. Not to mention Politifact's habit of exceptionally broad interpretations of some statements and absurdly narrow of others.

      Also this is the same president who, after winning the election, requested "judge me from the promises I keep, not the promises I made." Yeah. Sweet.

  2. Electronic Privacy Information Center by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  3. It's Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    it had saved ~35,314 images recorded with a millimeter wave system

    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.

    1. Re:It's Obvious by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

      Grannies, fine. But no MILFs? Straight to jail-bait? What is WRONG with these people!? Oh, wait.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  4. Pics or it didn't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!"

    1. Re:Pics or it didn't happen by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Funny

      Add in "If you do nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" and you have a new version of "Rock, Paper, Scissors".

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    2. Re:Pics or it didn't happen by pz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!"

      If some school kids visited the courthouse and the pictures were saved, remember that child pornography laws are so strict that it's nearly guilty until proven innocent. I'd hate to be an operator of one of those machines if there is even a single image of a minor. Even just one.

      Come to think of it, that would be a good way for the ACLU to dismantle the entire program.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  5. No Surprise at all by LeepII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:No Surprise at all by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since the TSA scanned a 12 year old girl, why aren't child pornography charges being brought up on them?

      Despite me not agreeing with this program, the "think of the children" scream has no bearing here. Child pornography must be pornographic. Even nude stills that are considered artistic (ie, some of Lewis Caroll's photos he took) are not considered pornography and are perfectly legal. You simply have to prove that the purpose of the image is not for "deviant gratification". In this case, the purpose of the images will be for airport security. End of story. It's the same reason every pediatrician in the country isn't going to jail for molestation. As long as their contact is necessary and professional, then it's allowed.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:No Surprise at all by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They claimed over and over that they were not storing the images. The fact that they were storing them clearly indicates that something deviant was occurring.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:No Surprise at all by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Possibly. It's not a guarantee. If the photo was legal then what he does with it could be viewed as irrelevant. In that case it'd be no more a legal problem than if they were "enjoying" the kids section of the latest JC Penny flyer.

      Either way, it's still a "what if" scenario in the end. Until that's proven then the point is moot.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:No Surprise at all by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was going to try to find some cites to prove you wrong and I went to Google and typed in "naked children pictures enjoying pornographic" and thinking better of it, closed the browser window.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    5. Re:No Surprise at all by dfghjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Child pornography must be pornographic."

      No it doesn't, it doesn't even need to be a child.

      "You simply have to prove that the purpose of the image is not for "deviant gratification"."

      The government has to prove its case against you, not the other way around.

      "As long as their contact is necessary and professional, then it's allowed."

      What you mean is that it matters WHO benefits from it.

    6. Re:No Surprise at all by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When parents are accused on child porn for taking photos of their kids in the bath, saying "child porn must be pornographic" is completely untrue. It seems that all it takes is for one person to object to the amount of clothing on a child for the "child porn" label to be tossed around.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  6. I'm confused by jmauro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I'm confused by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In edition the article mentions the Brijot Gen2 machine. All of the TSA ones I've seen are the L-3 communications Provision machine. So DoJ using a different machine from a different company are storing images so they decide to sue a different department that's using different machines with different procedures? It makes no sense whatsoever.

    2. Re:I'm confused by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The TSA claimed it was not possible to store the images. They lied.

      It isn't even an accidental lie either - their own procurement specifications require the ability to store and transmit copies in real time. Seems like the only thing keeping the machines doing from what the TSA said they "cannot" do is the flip of a switch. Why should we believe they aren't flipping that switch whenever they feel like it? After all they lied about the machines' capabilities, it ain't no big stretch of the imagination to expect them to lie about using that switch.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  7. What Kind of Marker.... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:What Kind of Marker.... by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 5, Funny

      Silver paint pen should do. Remember not to write "the TSA, the" in German, because some people might misunderstand.

    2. Re:What Kind of Marker.... by bgt421 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is an epic obscure Simpsons reference. When Sideshow Bob goes before the parole board, they question him about his "Die, Bart, Die" tattoo. He explains it as German, where 'die' is a definite article, and they buy it hook, line, and sinker. Sideshow Bob gets out, and mayhem insues.

  8. Re:What do these machines look like? by wjousts · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look for the sweaty pervert manning it.

  9. I'm also confused by confu2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  10. Re:Went through one recently by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are not legally obligated to go through one of these if you do not want to. If you refuse to go through this, which essentially amounts to a high-tech strip-search, they have to give you the old-fashioned pat-down.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  11. As an aside, not impressed by Necron69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

    1. Re:As an aside, not impressed by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      Known bogus accusations are standard cop-tricks to get you to confess to something, throw you off guard or make you reveal something.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  12. Does not violate the Fourth Amendment? by Defenestrar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Does not violate the Fourth Amendment? by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps one doesn't have to travel by air

      It doesn't matter. When the government says "You must waive your rights to participate in any activity which you don't have the explicit constitutional right to participate in", it has violated your rights. The extent of the violation is more or less depending on how common or important the activities are; for air travel it's pretty darned high, though not as high as for surface travel.

    2. Re:Does not violate the Fourth Amendment? by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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, in other words, dark skinned folks technically don't "have to" ride the bus, so its OK to make them sit in the back. Repeat for about one zillion other racial / ethnic discrimination situations.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  13. Samples Required by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)
  14. Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Travel by AIR? RTF Summary by Layth · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...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.

  16. Same old by NetNed · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  17. I still don't understand why by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.