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.
Ok, so now figure out how to make that image without exposing me to extra radiation.
Honestly, this whole thing is a joke and just shows how becoming too PC is a weakness. If we would just profile we wouldn't need half the security we have.
They'd still cause cancer deaths at a rate exceeding the terrorist threat.
I am embarrassed by people. Not because they're outraged about the scanners. But because it's over a little virtual nudity.
Worry about the incredible cost in hardware and training. Worry about some idiot cranking up the power, or a hardware flaw doing it for them. Worry about the infinite spiral of ineffective hoops in the security theater. Worry about what you're going to have to supper.
But, good grief, stop with the omg-naked and think-of-the-children crap.
Airport scanners are a joke. Unless they can detect anything in and out of a person's body they can and will be bypassed when needed. So here's the plan, rather than creating a softcore security theater, we copy the security methods of countries that do it effectively. Namely, Israel.
Of course we could just keep doing crazier and crazier scans as people progressively game the system, only to fail because their devices are faulty, not because they really had any trouble getting on the plane.
This misses the point. First (and least important), if you can distort the images, you can undistort them.
More importantly: people finally seem to be waking up to this simple fact: The government has no right to search you unless it has probable cause and a warrant. TSA, in fact, does not even have the right to demand an id. The right to interstate travel without government interference has been upheld by the courts: flying is a right, not a privilege. Nude scanners (even if distorted) and genital gropes violate your fourth amendment rights. Trying to make this violation more palatable is the wrong approach.
The right approach is to eliminate the TSA (and all of its regulations) and let the airlines and airports be responsible for their own security. As private companies, they have an interest in finding ways to guarantee security without humiliating their customers.
Fourth amendment, folks, use it or lose it.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Do I trust the scanner to:
- Actually mangle the image?
- Not save a "raw" image internally or transmitted someplace?
- Actually be mangled as described in front of out-of-sight invisible surveillance agent?
No, I don't. They've already been caught lying on all these issues, actually.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
The problem is not that anybody will see the naked images, the problem is not even that these scanners are probably worse for your health than the terrorists, the problem is even not that somebody is touching 'your junk' and the problem is even not that none of these procedures are making anything any safer (they are not.)
The problem is that you are a human being, and if you allow yourself to be treated like cattle, they will.
The problem is that those Freedoms and Liberties are eroding and you are allowing them to take the Freedoms and Liberties away.
People died and killed others for this kind of stuff because it matters. You only have one life, do you want to be cattle or a human?
You can't handle the truth.
Matters not. Radiation exposure risk is cumulative over your life. If this kills more people than the terrorists, it really doesn't matter if something else unrelated also kills more people than the terrorists; there are still the same number of additional deaths directly attributable to these machines and only these machines.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
apparently they forgot that all they have to do to make these scanners less objectionable is to get rid of them.
Cosmic radiation is imposed on you by the universe, not by the government. There is a difference in principle.
Same thing with analogies to medical xrays...people assume the risk of a chest X-ray because they have some medical problem and they voluntarily decide that undergoing a small amount of radiation is worth the information they will learn from the imaging. Any comparisons between the amount of radiation received from a medical x-ray and the amount of radiation imposed upon one by the federal government as a condition of using modern transportation is a gross category error. I don't care if these machines are the equivalent of 1 billionth of a chest Xray. The government should not be forcing me to be subjected to 1 billionth of a chest Xray. The government is not free to decide how much radiation I shall be exposed to. Or rather, it shouldn't be.
Of course, we're assuming that the numbers given by Rapiscan are in fact true - they didn't use cigarette company scientists to do their numbers.
No, I don't believe the FDA when they say that the scanners are "safe". I firmly believe they took Rapiscan's numbers at face value or adjusted their recommendations to be favorable to to Rapiscan - like they did for the Tuna industry and mercury intake. The FDA is beholden to industry.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Keep in mind that a terrorist (sorry, "freedom fighter") used an ass-bomb in an unsuccessful attempt on the Saudi Arabia's counter-terrorism minister.
Backscatter won't detect it. Groping (short of a finger up your asshole) won't detect it. Nope, we can only be safe if you drop trou and pull a goatse or let the TSA watch you take a shit.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
So, your argument boils down to: if we drop the theater and go back to metal detectors only, then 9/11 style hijackings in the US would be "common" again (mind you they only ever happened once on US soil, hence the date describing them)? Also mind you, they had no explosives, etc. Just box cutters.
Sorry, but no. Case in point, even with "enhanced" security we still had shoe and underpants bomber "terrorists" get through. Security hasn't gained us anything. Awareness of the fact that not all hijackings end up in safe landings has forced the public's hand in dealing with the threat in the air. We all but kill them now.
The attitude shift _alone_ will stop hijackings. Now random bombs in bags, ok, screen bags with dogs and sending them through scanners. Problem pretty much solved, or at least reduced to near zero, just as it was before.
Yes, so easy a "6-year old could do the same thing", and yet:
"The Livermore laboratory sent off a final application to the U.S. Patent Office on Nov. 23, 2006"
That provides insight to the absurdity of the patent process. Take something obvious, simple, and widely used, then say "Look! This is a brand new technique, just because no one has applied these algorithms to these sorts of images before."
Give me a break.
Better known as 318230.
Any poor soul that gets a rush out of viewing those body scans needs to move to a larger city where getting laid is more than a twice in a life time experience.
You or I or Muhammed al-Jihadi could still board a plane with a smuggled knife up your ass -- the metal detector would catch it but not the porno scan or sexual assault. However, it wouldn't be effective since cockpit doors are now locked. That's the one effective security measure that was implemented.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The oppressors have already won by framing the discussion around what is the most intrusion/inconvenience the public is willing to accept vs. what is the least amount of intrusion needed to provide a reasonable amount of safety.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
No, hijacking don't work anymore since every passenger knows they will die if they leave the hijackers alone. Even if you take away the sealed cockpit door (which isnt even a real nuissance, so keep it), you would need incredibly overwhelming force to subdue hundreds of passenger who know their only chance of survival is killing you. now you would probably need to get about 100 guys onto a plane and get into a full-scale wrestling match and choke every single passenger to death before you have control of the plane.
The mentality change in the passenger caused by 9-11 is preventing hijackings, not the security checks
People, what a bunch of bastards
Yeah, they seem to be missing the whole reason that people object to these things. 1) Don't wanna be seen naked 2) Unconvinced the radiation from the devices is safe 3) Big Brother is snooping too much in general TFA's proposal doesn't really address any of those.
Because there are no children in line...
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
We were safe right after the 9/11 attacks. The guys who forced the pilot to crash the plane upped the anti; Hijackings are no longer guaranteed, or even likely, to end with the passengers lives saved, so now they need to defend their lives themselves. There will be no more aerial hijackings, and anyone who tries will need to be scooped up into carrier bags to be taken from the plane.
As for bombs; We have trained dogs, x-ray machines for packages, and all manner of technology for checking packages, but not all packages are checked. We need to implement higher controls on the baggage side of airport security, not the passenger side. Train more dogs, get more baggage x-ray machines, and train more TSA agents for the behind-the-scenes security procedures.
What we don't need is 40 year olds rent-a-cops with authority issues touching the crotch of seven year old kids before they get on their trip to Disney World in case their hiding a kilo of Cemtex in their pants.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
The question I have is who controls the TSA. It is the belief of the American public that they elect representatives who then control the government. But, the TSA and Homeland Security in general seem not to be controlled by our elected representatives. I have yet to hear anyone outside the TSA who think these measures are necessary or valuable. Congressmen are fighting against it. Yet, the Homeland Security and the TSA don’t seem to care at all. They just continue to spout their “for your own good” refrain and do whatever they want. When the house to house searches and the interment of liberals start that will be for our on good too and we might no be able to stop it. The entire mentality of safety at all costs is costing our freedom.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Look at the terrorist plots that have been foiled since Sept. 11.
Who foiled the shoe bomber? Passengers. Who foiled the underwear bomber? Passengers.
The TSA is meaningless; what we need, and for the moment have, are other people flying on planes who are willing to prevent another Sept. 11.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
If you remove the security, do you really think terrorists wouldn't notice and exploit it again? Read up on history, once hijackings were extremely common UNTIL rigorous security measures put an end to them.
No, hijackings were extremely common until United Airlines Flight 93 put an end to them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Some people can be titilated by some really grotesque images. There's porn of old women, fat women, etc.
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 to use road transportation to avoid flying
They already did when they started making everyone tale their shoes off and go through all the security theater. They're just raising the death rate further.
Odd how a transportation safety administration causes travel to be less safe. perhaps they should call it the Transportation Security Theater Administration?
3,000 people died on American soil from terrorism in this decade, but meanwhile 45,000 people die on the highways annually.
Free Martian Whores!
I never understood why after somebody hijacked a plane with some fucking knives, we decided to make sure nobody could possibly defend themselves when the one person we are worried about brings a functioning laptop, breaks it and uses the sharp plastic to slit the throat of the guy next to him to show it can be a weapon, and quickly take a hostage. Everything can be a weapon if somebody wants it to be. The only thing the TSA has ever done is made it less likely anybody would survive an actual incident. Period.
No, you're missing an even more important point: when I get a dental or medical X-ray it's for MY benefit. I'm willing to accept a little more risk because I get some benefit out of it. Likewise when flying in a plane and receiving a slightly higher natural radiation dose due to less atmospheric shielding at altitude -- I weigh the increased risk against the benefit of traveling by plane.
What fricking benefit do I get when I stand in an airport scanner? I already know I'm not a terrorist or smuggler. It's a complete waste of time. There's no benefit for me. Zero. Who care's if the risk from the scanner is small or huge? I'm agreeing to all the risk for somebody else's benefit. It's all downside for me. Worse, it's effectiveness is dubious anyway.
Also, how often do you get a chest x-ray? I can count the number I've had on one hand. Some people fly weekly.
Free Martian Whores!
Where are the pictures where we see Michelle, Malia An and Natasha being fondled by these people.
This all happening sickens me and yet I am not surprised. The staff just do as they are ordered. People do if their nose bleeds and just nicely follow whatever the leader says.
Stop talking about the second amendment, start using it. The wackos are not that wrong in their fear of a new world order. They just could never imagine that it would be their own people and that in a few years the UN will need to come and rescue them. Not the other way around.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Maybe they should prevent the TVs from broadcasting that, seeing as they're helping the terrorists win...
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
"In some ways, if we're relying on airport screeners to prevent terrorism, it's already too late. After all, we can't keep weapons out of prisons. How can we ever hope to keep them out of airports?"
-Bruce Schneier
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
Both bombs failed because of incompetence. By the time the passengers were aware of them (from the fire, smoke, and smell), the bombs had already failed.
It's one thing to dislike the scanners, it's another to lie about events that actually happened.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
What's so objectionable about the scanners? From what I can tell, the radiation they give off is infinitesimal, the pictures they make are barely more detailed than silhouettes, and going through them is a quick and painless procedure. Maybe there are details I don't know, but I've been surprised at the outrage over the full-body scanners.
First off, you're using "infinitesimal" wrong. Regardless, there are numerous stories about how it's not as benign as it's being portrayed as. No matter the dose, people should not be forced into exposure.
But what it boils down to is that:
1. Citizens in a free nation should not be forcibly and deliberately exposed to radiation.
2. Citizens in a free nation should not have nude images taken of their bodies without their explicit permission.
3. Citizens in a free nation should not be have their bodies, including their genitalia, groped by strangers without explicit permission.
Specifically, this should not be a standard practice used on innocent citizens in a free country. Especially not as a prerequisite for something as common as air travel.
I can't fathom how anyone can find this ok. I find that to be one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole mess and it serves as a good reminder of why it's so important to stop these things early on. There are just far too many citizens can be relied upon to cry for more oppression by the state.
While it is true that you can't keep all potential weapons off a plane you can at least make it very difficult to get anything large enough to do serious damage on board. That was what we were doing pre-9/11 and it worked fairly well.
Rather than trying to improve detection methods what we really need to do is improve the aircraft so that the small bombs people can sneak on board are not enough to take them out. It has been possible to do that since the mid 90s with bomb-proof cargo containers and passenger cabins. It makes everything heavier and costs more but basically it is well within our ability to make bombs on aircraft ineffective.
Other small weapons are already ineffective thanks to re-enforced cockpit doors and passengers afraid of dying.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC