Slashdot Mirror
Making Airport Scanners Less Objectionable
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that one of the researchers who helped develop the software for the scanners says there is a simple fix that would make scanning less objectionable. The fix would distort the images captured on full-body scanners so they look like reflections in a fun-house mirror, but any potentially dangerous objects would be clearly revealed, says Willard 'Bill' Wattenburg, a former nuclear weapons designer at the Livermore lab. 'Why not just distort the image into something grotesque so that there isn't anything titillating or exciting about it?' asks Wattenburg, adding that the modification is so simple that 'a 6-year-old could do the same thing with Photoshop... It's probably a few weeks' modification of the program.' Wattenburg said he was rebuffed when he offered the concept to Department of Homeland Security officials four years ago. A TSA official said the agency is working on development of scanner technology that would reduce the image to a 'generic icon, a generic stick figure' that would still reveal potentially dangerous items." Reader FleaPlus points out an unintended consequence: some transportation economists believe that the TSA's new invasive techniques may lead to more deaths as more people use road transportation to avoid flying — much more dangerous by the mile than air travel.
As we can see here, the TSA doesn't like even blurry crotches. All that stuff we heard about "blurring the private areas" was a lie by the TSA and John Pistole because here we have someone who had to get patted down anyway because of a blurred crotch.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
"A group of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) raised concerns about the 'potential serious health risks' from the scanners in a letter sent to the White House Office of Science and Technology in April... 'While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high,' they wrote."
Continued - http://www.prisonplanet.com/naked-body-scanners-may-be-dangerous-scientists.html
Updated - http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-naked-scanners-airports-dangerous-scientists.html
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
there is absolutely no need for prison security in the airport for regular people just trying to travel. It is a just a big scam by Michael Chertoff and Rapiscan Systems to sell naked scanners to the tsa for billions in profits. I bet if they were not allowed to make any money they would no longer be pushing their use.
First of all, the presentation of that article on WashingtonPost.com was 4 pages of absolute horror.
Second, I heard this stick figure display was already being done in Europe, but it still doesn't make me feel safer or less worried about anything.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I would think that the cosmic radiation dose you get on the airplane is much more deadly than even that.
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" -- Homer
Sorry, but there is an xkcd about rule 34. He is officially legit on this one.
http://xkcd.com/305/
But if they don't inconvenience people enough, they won't feel properly protected. An airline suicide hijacking is something that gets on TV, so people will be far more afraid of that than they would be of a more realistic danger.
The reason the US doesn't have a system like Israel's is that most flights in the US are domestic.
I used to think the same, until I found-out that scientists are warning these machines can cause skin cancer. See my message further below.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
For a typical cross-country flight in a commercial airplane, you are likely to receive 2 to 5 millirem (mrem) of radiation, less than half the radiation dose you receive from a chest x-ray.
So you may be right about that. However, the observation posted by commodore64_love above about the concentration of the scanner dose in the skin does alter the picture a little.
First (and least important), if you can distort the images, you can undistort them.
That's only true if the distortion is reversible and doesn't result in the loss of information. Distortions that result in information loss can't be un-distorted.
I mentioned this on the last TSA thread, but it bears repeating: In fact, campaign contributions were unnecessary for this, because the DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff who started this move had significant investments manufacturer of the naked-scan machines.
I am officially gone from
Profiling, how the Israelis do it, isn't what Americans consider profiling. Americans consider it "oh, he's Middle-Eastern looking, search him." What I've read is that Israeli profiling is "talk for a few minutes with a highly trained expert, who uses your reactions to profile you." I would probably work, but would also involve replacing a lot of $8/hr TSA grunts with $?/hr TSA interviewers.
And the standard magnetic scan. That can catch a lot and isn't invasive.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Actually your odds are a bit high. The Wall Street Journal says:
The odds of dying in a terrorist attack on a plane in a given year are 1 in 25,000,000.
The odds of a Westerner being killed by a terrorist in a given year are 1 in 3,000,000.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646963713065116.html
The NTSB says the odd for car accidents are:
The odds of dying in a car accident in a given year are 1 in 18,585.
The odds of simply being in a car accident in a given year are 1 in 5,889.
http://www.ntsb.gov/
In Schiphol, Amsterdam airport, the final screening (metal detector etc) was done at the gate. That airport has a shared area for both incoming and outgoing passengers. So also transit passengers.
Having airliners themselves do the screening becomes fairly easy to organise with such a layout.
Wrong on multiple counts:
Please take the time to learn about the technology before attempting to lecture people about how it works.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Okay, here's a relatively recent citation to get you started:
[Cumulative Radiation Exposure Shows Increased Cancer Risk For Emergency Department Patients]
That said, it has been common knowledge in medical and scientific circles for decades, so it really doesn't need a citation.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
the police have to have probable cause to do a pat down. That is the difference. Innocent before guilty remember?
The reason you are surprised is that terrorists are far more rare than you've been lead to believe.
Of course the government is doing its very best to manufacture domestic terrorists so at some point you must assume that they will be successful.
The only possible reason you've heard
absolutely no science to back that statement up.
is either because you are deaf, dumb, or lazy. The research is pretty clear. Flying causes skin cancer, but has little to no effect on the incidence of other kinds of cancer. Thirty seconds of google-fu brings up:
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/airline-staff-and-cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC124549/
http://oem.bmj.com/content/57/3/175.abstract