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.
Anyone care to google: Funhouse mirror p0rn? Because I sense rule 34...
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.
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
If a 6 year old could do it in Photoshop, then the same 6 year old probably could undo it too. Just run the distortion with opposite paramaters (shrink where you stretched, and stretch where you shrank) and you end up with the original image again.
I seem to recall a few years ago, a police agency cracking a child pr0n case by undoing a distortion made on the perpetrator's face in the images.
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
Then the TSA will be swamped with job applications from fetishists who like funhouse-distorted body images...
"Will you look at the size of her feet!!"
"... assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result." "Given that there will be 600 million airplane passengers per year, that makes the machines deadlier than the terrorists." http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html
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.
"'a 6-year-old could do the same thing with Photoshop... It's probably a few weeks' modification of the program.'"
There are six-year olds who can undertake a multi-week programming project?
I can't believe my parents were wasting my time making me read Dr. Seuss when I could have been doing this shit!
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
Seriously, since 9/11 we have gone from a "let the hijackers land where they want and don't fuss" mentality to a "kill the fucker" sport mentality. Hijackings, at least on US flights are a thing of the past. Sure, ok, finding an explosive is a good thing, but at what cost? The chances of being on a plane with a bomb are so tiny it isn't even worth worrying about.
Lets go back to metal detectors to get the obvious and maybe walk bomb sniffing dogs through often enough to deter would-be "terrorists". Oh, and scan checked luggage all you want, just stop stealing from it, ok?
Nude photos and fondling my (and everyone elses) man bits isn't making me feel safer, it's just making me want to fly less and make me loathe my government even more. I'm spending less and the government is spending more. What a great recipe.
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.
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 mean, these are average Americans we're talking about. Most of my countrymen and women are already distorted into something grotesque so that there isn't anything exciting or titillating about them. But seriously, though... if there were mass boycotts of the airlines for even a couple of days in protest over the scanners, I bet we'd see them removed right quick. Economics trump national security, after all. Plus, apparently economics are a national security issue in this post-cold war, post-columbine, post-9/11 world.
It would also be "less objectionable" if we were not exposed to significant dose of ionizing radiation.
http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf
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.
While it's most likely true that more people are driving vs flying for the holidays, I don't think the TSA is the reason. It's often cheaper to drive and, for flights under 2 to 2 1/2 hours, the time is basically the same [including drive time to airport, luggage pickup, and, yes, security screening]. I'm extremely doubtful that the airlines are losing business due to the TSA [not that they're not losing business because of other reasons: bad service, increased costs (i.e. luggage fees), decreased routes]. I seriously question anyone who says they're not flying because of the TSA's new scanners and pat downs. Most likely, they wouldn't be flying for other reasons. This is not to say there are not potential health concerns with the new full-body imagers, those do have to be addressed, especially to pilots and flight attendants.
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 -- much more dangerous by the mile than air travel.
That's ok think about all the carbon dioxide that won't be released into the atmosphere, the little polars won't drown and the low lands won't flood. Why do you hate polar bears?
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Italy has decided to dump the full body scanners because they are slow and ineffective.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/international/italy-to-abandon-airport-body-scanner-project
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/italy-to-abandon-airport-body-scanners-20100924-15pgu.html
http://www.euronews.net/2010/09/23/italian-airport-security-axing-body-scanners/
Seems to me that ought be a clear signal that they are just security theater.
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.
I want hot women TSA agents. Not only would that make it NOT be a problem, it would make it a BONUS.
Oh and to be fair, ripped guys for the ladies. Just recruit a bunch of Jersey guidos and throw some (more) oil on them.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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
I didn't know if I should have laughed or cried when I saw this article.. but it just illustrates the problem with our country.. those who make the rules don't have to follow them.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/nation-world-news/incoming-speaker-boehner-avoids-airport-pad-down-1008368.html/
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Because there are no children in line...
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
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.
The wikipedia page talks about the "well dressed man" and congressional testimony revealed that various TLAs knew about him and intentionally chose not to revoke his passport or put him on the no-fly list.
As someone else said, "who controls the TSA?" From the appearances of things, nobody. Either that, or the Executive branch has a lot to answer for.
I don't care if this makes it 'less' objectionable. In my mind, it doesn't. It's largely the principle of the matter to which I protest, but the implications are thus:
* The backscatter radiation is of highly questionable health implications. There are many places in the world where microwaves have not been adopted (for good reason): they change the molecular structure of fats and destroy vitamins. Aside from the direct radiation impact said 'scanners' have on our bodies, what are they doing to our fat and vitamin content?
* Inconvenience
* I'm paying how much for all of this?
From now on, I'm driving or taking the train. It will mean several things to me and my family:
* I'm investing (yes, investing) in a larger vehicle with a diesel engine. Something old but reliable (think: Chevy/Ford vans). My family will be able to drive in comfort at nominal per-mile cost.
* When not driving, we will be taking the train. Somehow (where it is available) long-distance train fares remain relatively low (eg. $150/person for a Denver-San Francisco round trip) - though there are implications such as vehicle storage to contend with here, as well.
* As a result of the time requirements (our families live on the coasts; we're in the Black Hills), we will not be traveling as often.
Their security theater was somewhat tolerable before. It was just barely quicker to fly 500 miles than it was to drive (eg. Rapid City to Omaha), but cost a bit more. Now, it appears to take significantly longer, it's more inconvenient in a dozen different ways in addition to time, and cost is through the roof.
I suspect that if we got the FAA and the TSA out of things, air transit would once again be cheap and reliable. But that will never happen.
I think it's time to see this country instead of just flying over it.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Again, i'm presented with a meaningless statement concerning the relative risks of car travel vrs flying. Please note: We do NOT choose travel methods based on mileage!!!! To say that air travel is markedly safer than by automobile is to ignore a simple fact: we choose the mode based on *time* to get there, NOT the distance! I might choose a vacay travel time that is reasonable based on total available vacation time. A month in Australia from Boston is worth spending many hours in flight. Death rates MUST be stated in 'deaths per hour in the conveyance' , not in fatalities per mile! When i do see such figures, then i'll pay attention... but i assure you that the numbers will not be such as to make flying seen to be so enormously safe.
You're wrong. Clearly the number of deaths should be stated in terms of 'number of stops for fast food divided by restroom breaks'. Anything else is meaningless. I can assure you that using this method driving will turn out to be much safer.
Isn't 'time to get there' directly related to distance and speed at which you travel? The only time flying is slower is when you have to spend more time driving to and from the airport than to drive to your destination. So basically what you are saying is that if traveling 1000 miles by car you were more likely to die, it would be ok because... you got to spend more time in your car. Right?
As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.
Press Release – FAA Announces Decision on Child Safety Seats
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.
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.