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."

20 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 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
    5. 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/
    6. 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."
    7. 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.
  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.

  4. 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.

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

    Look for the sweaty pervert manning it.

  6. 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

  7. 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
  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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.