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.
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.
The reason the US doesn't have a system like Isreal's is because they've taken a systematic look at the problem and have implemented a comprehensive, multilayered, efficient solution. In the US, we prefer one-step, silver-bullet type "fixes". Anything more complex would be argued out of existence.
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.
You mean being interrogated before boarding the plane?
Why don't we just go back to what we had before and just accept the fact that flying will never be 100% safe, but remains the safest form of transportation available? A hijacking will never be successful again, not after what happened the last time. People won't just sit there when somebody jumps up with a box cutter. Explosives will always be a threat, but realistically what's to keep a terrorist from walking into an airport with an explosive vest and detonating it in the security area? Will we install body scanners at all entrances and exits then? It's just ridiculous. Of all the ways to die in this world why are we making such a big deal out of this one?
At this point I don't believe it has anything to do with public safety, not really. I think terrorism is embarrassing to governments. A small group of people can't possibly be allowed to "beat" one of the greatest countries in the world with some home made explosives and box cutters. It's just plain embarrassing. So lets just keep ramping up security to show those miscreants who's in charge here, put them back in their place so they'll never make fools of us again.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
"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)