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.

56 of 681 comments (clear)

  1. Rule 34? by Hatman39 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone care to google: Funhouse mirror p0rn? Because I sense rule 34...

    1. Re:Rule 34? by nloop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, but there is an xkcd about rule 34. He is officially legit on this one.

      http://xkcd.com/305/

    2. Re:Rule 34? by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      apparently they forgot that all they have to do to make these scanners less objectionable is to get rid of them.

    3. Re:Rule 34? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Rule 34? by bberens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:Rule 34? by Kintar1900 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Rule 34? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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/
    7. Re:Rule 34? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Rule 34? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Rule 34? by capnchicken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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)
  2. Great...now just one more issue.... by FictionPimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep profiling seems to work for the Israelis. Or eliminate the search completely (other than the standard Xraying of suitcases). Your American odds of dying in an airplane bombing are 1 in 500,000. That is about the same as your risk of drowning in a tsunami or getting hit by a meteorite. I think I'd rather take that vanishingly-small risk, rather than take the 1-to-1 risk that some TSA officer will be playing with my ___, touching my wife's ___s, and/or fondling my kid's ___.

      If you really want to be afraid, fear your car. Odds of dying in a car is 1 in 100.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by leonardluen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the last line of the summary says it all

      may lead to more deaths as more people to use road transportation to avoid flying — much more dangerous by the mile than air travel.

      if it is true, and flying is already safer than road travel, then why do we need all the security?

    3. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This would still not make it any less objectionable from my perspective. As long as the distortion is occurring in software, it isn't acceptable. As long as the non-distorted data exists for even a microsecond on some hard drive somewhere, the data can be:

      • stored for later examination without the distortion applied
      • sent somewhere else for later examination without the distortion applied
      • copied by someone who hacked into the computers

      And that's assuming that they don't just tell us that they're applying this distortion while not really doing so. Given the number of lies the TSA has told about these things so far, I don't trust these people as far as I can throw them.

      Only one thing will make these less objectionable: not using them. If you're going to blur the heck out of the image anyway, why not replace those $170,000 machines with $4,000 infrared-based thermal imaging cameras and be done with it? They're 1/42nd the cost, and they do the blurring in hardware due to the nature of the energy emissions being detected. They're also much faster than the TSA's expensive toys---you could walk through like you do a metal detector instead of having to wait for a scan---and they're passive, so there's no exposure to dangerous ionizing radiation (and before you say that this is a small amount of radiation, I'll point out that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe according to BEIR VII from the National Academies of Science).

      No, these unholy abominations have to go. They're a fundamental invasion of our privacy, and a perfect example of wasteful government spending.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if it is true, and flying is already safer than road travel, then why do we need all the security?

      1) The elite prefer, at this time, to control the masses by fear. Americans are carefully social engineered to be cowards, and the elite like it that way. Otherwise, all the lives ruined by the elites might want to take a few with em on the way out. So, keep them scared.

      2) Do you have any idea how much freaking money that "security theater" costs? Lots of campaign contributions later, it turns out we have a need.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by leonardluen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On a per TRIP basis, cars, trains, and buses are all safer than airplanes.

      That's because takeoff and landing in a plane is FAR more dangerous than "takeoff" and "landing" in the other modes of travel. That raises the per trip fatality rate higher for planes.

      but that type of incident isn't going to be stopped by the govt fondling people.

    6. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by capnchicken · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The funny thing is, we don't really even need that! There were some very good measures put in place after 9/11 that prevented the use of commercial airliners being used as missiles against us, namely a locked and reinforced cockpit door and armed air marshals. This also prevents hijackings for any reason, such as extortion and the like. Either way, as long as these measures are in place, planes being used as missiles is mitigated. And I firmly believe I will not see it happen again in the US in my lifetime.

      Now that the threat to the general public is diminished the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors. I don't even think the TSA should be the one scanning the people at all, it should be the individual airlines. That way you can choose to pay for your security if you really want it, and competitive practices can find the optimal solution.

      --
      A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
    7. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ascribing it to a malevolent elite (reptilians?) makes the problem intractible. It's easier to solve when you realise that the people making these horrible decisions are the same kind of hacked-together animal brain as the rest of us, operating on similar drives toward similar objectives. That's not to say there aren't malevolent entities amoungst them, but those are the parasites, not the organism, and certainly not the pathology.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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 /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors

      Like blowing themselves up in the security checkpoint line, for example.

    10. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep profiling seems to work for the Israelis.

      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.

      Or eliminate the search completely (other than the standard Xraying of suitcases)

      And the standard magnetic scan. That can catch a lot and isn't invasive.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we would just profile we wouldn't need half the security we have.

      What do you mean by "profile"?

      If you mean "apply extra scrutiny to certain ethnic and religious groups", that's completely and utterly useless.

      If you mean "put all of the passengers under intense stress and watch their reactions", like the Israelis do, well, that works very well... but makes the security screening vastly more manpower-intensive and time-consuming. And, frankly, much more unpleasant than being briefly groped. I've flown out of Ben-Gurion airport a few times and I'd rather have a prostate exam.

      The truth is that we simply don't need half the security we have. We should just roll it all back to pre-9/11 levels, keeping only the cockpit door locks. That plus the passengers' understanding that allowing their plane to be hijacked is likely to get them killed will mean that terrorism on airplanes will be restricted to killing passengers, making planes a low-value target. It's possible that the occasional Bad Thing will happen on an airplane, but it'll still be safer than driving.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors.

      And yet they don't... no one has walked into an airport and blown that up, even though it would work GREAT. It's as if there isn't a vast network of resourceful bombers looking to cause as much harm as possible... only a handful of amateurs. It's exactly as if that threat was overblown in order to gain power though fear.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    14. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Funny

      In the US, flying is definitely safer than driving. Especially to Europe.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    15. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      The radiation produced by the scanners is non-ionizing. RF is non-ionizing. It's not an X-ray, or an MRI, or a CT, all of which use ionizing radiation. So you lose points for that one.

      Wrong on multiple counts:

      1. The Rapiscan machines are backscatter X-ray machines, which by definition produce ionizing radiation. The millimeter wave machines do not. So when you go into these things, you have about a 50/50 chance of getting a dose of ionizing radiation, depending on which of the two manufacturers built the box.
      2. MRI machines do not use ionizing radiation.

      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.

    16. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the last line of the summary says it all

      may lead to more deaths as more people to use road transportation to avoid flying — much more dangerous by the mile than air travel.

      if it is true, and flying is already safer than road travel, then why do we need all the security?

      TFA didn't give any guesstimates of numbers, so I ran a few. If 5% of the 800 billion air miles in this country (as of Sept 09 to Aug 10) are replaced by highway miles, then that's something like 500 extra highway deaths. I'm using NHTSA and BTS statistics on fatality rates and air travel statistics.

      Naturally there are a lot of assumptions, like just how many air miles we might lose to people not willing to go through the enhanced intrusiveness and increased wait times. Certainly, not every lost air mile is made up with a highway mile. Many people would drive to a nearer vacation spot. Business that would have been conducted face-to-face might happen another way. Some people might just skip the trip altogether.

      Nevertheless, if the deaths are in the hundreds then that could easily exceed the lost of a single plane. These deaths would be spread out though throughout the year and across the country, so wouldn't make the news. So we'd feel safer even though statistically aren't.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    17. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My wife and I were talking about this yesterday. We would rather be one of the many thousands of people a screener sees "naked" instead of one of the people being publicly fondled.

      That's pretty much how they're counting on you thinking. Naturally a public groping is less appealing than a quasi-anonymous screening. However, your tacit agreement that this type of search is necessary in the first place puts you at a disadvantage to start with for it means you've dismissed option 3 out-of-hand.

      That also leads to suggestions like those in TFA -- not to eliminate the searches, but to make them "less invasive". Too many people seem to think that the major issue here is nudity. A subset of people claim to be concerned about the radiation, but I think many of them are doing this to avoid sounding too radical about the real issue: for me (and I think many others), the issue is "unreasonable search" -- and as long as we continue to consent to the searches, they're allowed to do them.

      Of course, you're free to fall in line and know your place. As for me, I'll speak with my wallet and contacting my representatives. I've already stopped flying unless the drive was more than 12 hours -- after all, 12 hours is close to break-even when you factor in flight time and security. (One one recent occasion I drove 500 miles and made it home before my flying colleagues.) I can and will stretch that to 24 hours, even though it inconveniences the hell out of me.

      I'm just glad that the media is picking up on this issue. I only hope their attention span lasts longer than it takes for some administrator to soothe them by saying the searches will be "less invasive" from now on.

    18. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

    19. Re:Great...now just one more issue.... by IICV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So? Who cares? If there ever was a use for Plato's noble lie, it's this. I'm spreading that shit around, because maybe it'll make people wake up a little bit.

      Also: your chances of dying in a hijacking are something like one in a million or less. What are your chances of getting skin cancer from this device? If they're greater than one in a million (which is entirely possible), then it is not worthwhile to use these devices.

      This is the same reason why the new breast cancer screening recommendations for women over age 50 say that they should get mammograms only once every two years, instead of once a year - the chances of detecting breast cancer are outweighed by the chances of causing breast cancer when you take a mammogram once a year.

  3. Porno is not the only concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They'd still cause cancer deaths at a rate exceeding the terrorist threat.

  4. TSA won't use it. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  5. Doesn't fix the Radiation problem by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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
  6. undo. by DjReagan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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"
  7. Oh sure.... by dskoll · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!!"

  8. Deadlier than the terrorists by ei4anb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "... 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

    1. Re:Deadlier than the terrorists by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would think that the cosmic radiation dose you get on the airplane is much more deadly than even that.

      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.

    2. Re:Deadlier than the terrorists by BetterSense · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Deadlier than the terrorists by AnonymousClown · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But it all adds up - a little there, a little here, and if you're going for medical treatment, etc....

      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

    4. Re:Deadlier than the terrorists by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You get about one mrem per kilomile when flying. Emphasis on the word "about".

      The problem with using "a dental xray" as a measuring stick, is depending on the technology level used, it varies by about one order of magnitude. Then there's another order of magnitude of B.S applied depending on which side you're propagandizing for, such as "do you mean per full dental set (and what is a full dental set anyway, it depends on insurance company, country of residence, and dentist preference) or do you mean per individual snapshot?). But as a total BS estimate over a large 1st world population you'll get about ten mrem per dental xray (although individual experience will vary by a factor of about 5)

      The mystifying part is my teeth are thinner than, say, my wallet or my belt buckle. Yet the nudie body scanner claims to use a hundredth the dose to hit an entire body. On the other hand a diagnostic dental xray is probably higher res needing higher intensity. On the other hand the efficiency of the flux (forget the name) is probably way the heck higher for a dental xray than a nudie scanner.

      I'm thinking just from a purely engineering standpoint, aside from all political statistical BS where both sides are lying to control peoples opinons, that they're about the same dose within an order of magnitude.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:Deadlier than the terrorists by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cosmic radiation is imposed on you by the universe, not by the government.

      That's exactly what the government wants you to think.

  9. Flap over invasive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Flap over invasive by ChipMonk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try explaining to a preschooler how much "crap" is his fear of the two big stranger taking him away from visibly upset Mommy and Daddy and then touching him in ways that would get 15 years to life for anyone else who did it. Better yet, try explaining that to Mommy and Daddy.

  10. Easy? by falsified · · Score: 4, Funny

    "'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.
  11. Quick Fix - Remove the Scanners by rotide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  12. America is suppose to be a free country by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. Why distort the image? by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  14. This misses the point by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  15. Do I Trust It? by dcollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  16. Wrong problem by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  17. Italy is dumping scanners by protektor · · Score: 5, Interesting
  18. Re:Israel by CityZen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:A long losing battle by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Israel by Xelios · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  21. Re:Israel by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Informative

    The reason the US doesn't have a system like Israel's is that most flights in the US are domestic.

  22. Patented by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.