Slashdot Mirror


Underwear Invention Protects Privacy At Airport

Thanks to Jeff Buske you don't have to be embarrassed while going through the full body scanners at the airport. Buske has invented radiation shielding underwear for the shy traveler. From the article: "Jeff Buske says his invention uses a powdered metal that protects people's privacy when undergoing medical or security screenings. Buske of Las Vegas, Nev.-Rocky Flats Gear says the underwear's inserts are thin and conform to the body's contours, making it difficult to hide anything beneath them. The mix of tungsten and other metals do not set off metal detectors."

325 comments

  1. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.

    1. Re:Well... by Blindman · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.

      More accurately, only the outlaws will wear underwear.

      --
      I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, commandos versus outlaws, then?

    3. Re:Well... by sakasune · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.

      More accurately, only the outlaws will wear underwear.

      Actually, only outlaws will have obscured genitalia. Also reminds me a Futurama quote where one of the cops said "And unblur your face, too!"

      --
      "You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
    4. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.

      http://failblog.org/2010/11/23/epic-fail-photos-probably-bad-news-tsa-fail/

    5. Re:Well... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be, "...only outlaws will have obscure genitalia"?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:Well... by bughunter · · Score: 1

      I can see a market for air travel modesty underwear that include fake genitalia to obscure the fact that your obscuring your own, erm... modest accoutrement.

      I'll take the Derek Smalls model, please.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Look, you don't understand. There was shrinkage ...

    8. Re:Well... by Chriscypher · · Score: 1

      the underwear's inserts are thin and conform to the body's contours

      Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?

      --
      "You have liberated me from thought."
    9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Women don't know about shrinkage.

    10. Re:Well... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      ...like a scared turtle!

    11. Re:Well... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I was wondering about this. If you normally go "commando"...well, can you use this stuff to coat the inside of your trousers, and still have the protection the radiation shielded underwear would have?

      Frankly, next time I go through TSA, I figure I'll just offer them an extra $20 for the cutest (relatively speaking) girl there to pat me down and give a happy ending.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I figure I'll just offer them an extra $20 for the cutest (relatively speaking) girl there to pat me down and give a happy ending.

      I hope you get arrested, jackass.

      It's a legitimate dispute about security v. [privacy/obscurity]. It is not carte blanche to insult women.

    13. Re:Well... by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      bickerdyke
    14. Re:Well... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I want to buy a bunch of these and spell out "I want you inside me" on my chest with them, just to see the look on the TSA employee's face.

    15. Re:Well... by shnull · · Score: 0

      maybe the amish will finally accept technology

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  2. Suspecious by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A hell of allot of good that do anyone. Its not like if the TSA sees anything remotely out of the ordinary with the scanner you are not going to then get the pat-down or some other intrusive search as a result.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Suspecious by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly what I thought. "We can see your junk, better feel around to make sure they're there."

    2. Re:Suspecious by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The gropedown is what you get if you opt out of the scan. I'm sure that taking a scan and raising an anomaly involves much more vigorous investigation.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Suspecious by Tryle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let's get the terminology right here. It's called "gate rape".

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gate%20Rape&defid=5365083

    4. Re:Suspecious by Reilaos · · Score: 4, Informative
    5. Re:Suspecious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can also be molested even if you are agree to the porno viewer.

    6. Re:Suspecious by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      A hell of allot of good that do anyone. Its not like if the TSA sees anything remotely out of the ordinary with the scanner you are not going to then get the pat-down or some other intrusive search as a result.

      Not to worry. It will be all right. These underwear are named after the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility. These are the good guys! They're US! And as an extra bonus, they light up at night.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Suspecious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the underwear needs to create a false image that looks like it is plausible.

    8. Re:Suspecious by ciderbrew · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's the questions for the future.
      Hello sir, Rape or Radiation?
      My wife and I will take radiation; but we are raising our child catholic so ...

    9. Re:Suspecious by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everyone's doing this wrong. the TSA will never stop their pat-downs while the public is afraid of being groped, and this anti-screening day supposedly set for tomorrow (sort of a carbon-based DDOS) isn't the solution either. You want to stop the intrusive behavior? Simple.

      Grind on the screener's hands while moaning loudly and gyrating your hips. It may not change the official policy, but it will eventually make all the screeners quit.

      Well, except maybe the pervy ones.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    10. Re:Suspecious by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      "Sir, your underwear violates our security protocols. Please step this way for your cavity search."

    11. Re:Suspecious by SleazyRidr · · Score: 3, Funny

      I won't go that far, but I've sent off for the free sample of Extenz, and I'm going to take that before the screening. I'm also thinking about wearing a kilt. I'm hoping they'll ask me if I know what they're going to do so I can say something along the lines of "I've been looking forward to it." Depending on how it goes, I might finish off with a quip like "What, no happy ending?"

      Probability that I'll have the balls to go through with it: low

    12. Re:Suspecious by hypergreatthing · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hold on a second sir. Let me put on my priest robes...

    13. Re:Suspecious by basotl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The people participating in the opt-out day could still do that. That would be the icing on the cake.

      --
      HTC EVO 4G LTE w/ CM 10.2 | NookColor w/ CM 10.2 | Samsung Epic 4G w/ CM 10.1
    14. Re:Suspecious by Garridan · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, it's a "freedom pat".

    15. Re:Suspecious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Probability that I'll have the balls to go through with it: low

      Do your balls hang low? Do they wobble to and fro?
      Can you tie them in a knot? Can you tie them in a bow?
      Can you throw 'em over your shoulder like a Continental soldier? Ask a T.S.O.!

      (No need to get testy, all TSOs are professionally-trained ball-handlers and kid-fiddlers. To professionalize, you must federalize!)

    16. Re:Suspecious by hargrand · · Score: 2, Funny

      And when the jack booted perv is done, pull a $20 bill out of your pocket, give it to him / her and say "You were magnificent! Thank you thank you!". If you think you can get away with it, give him / her a big sloppy full mouth kiss, too.

    17. Re:Suspecious by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 2, Funny

      The day before travel, eat meals consisting of, beans, broccoli, eggs, protein power and buttermilk - this is guaranteed to produce copious amounts of gas, at least for me. - Consume what works best for you. When they grab your crotch let fly. As an added bouns don't shower for a couple of days and wear stinky sweaty workout clothes - the ones you took off at the gym and stuffed in your gym bag a few days ago. Too bad about the poor fuckers that sit next to you on a 5 hour flight though, if you're feeling nice bring fresh clothes and beano on the plane.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    18. Re:Suspecious by nizo · · Score: 1

      The O stands for orificer, right?

    19. Re:Suspecious by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Flying at altitude with a gut full of gas sucks. With less air pressure outside your skin, it feels like there is that much more pressure inside your intestines.

      Did you ever see that Southwest Air reality show where they asked a guy to go wash in the airport bathroom before getting on the plane? I think they found a new shirt for him, too. The guy smelled so bad waiting by the gate that people complained before they got on the plane.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    20. Re:Suspecious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the pat downs myself. I sometimes go through a couple of times. It is helpful if you have your cell phone on vibrate mode. It enhances the pleasure.

    21. Re:Suspecious by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Funny

      And state clearly that if the inspector touches your junk, you're going to send them a bill, just like all your other customers. Just because they're the TSA does not entitle them to a freebie.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    22. Re:Suspecious by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Better yet, give them a COUNTERFEIT $20 bill so that they get arrested and they'll end up on the receiving end of an involuntary groping.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    23. Re:Suspecious by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, kinda, no, maybe if i really tried.

    24. Re:Suspecious by netsavior · · Score: 1

      I have heard a lot of people say this, and I am not completely convinced all of them are joking... But I would be willing to bet you could get prosecuted for sexual assault for that. Since the poor groper is just doing their job, a process to which you "consented"

    25. Re:Suspecious by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0

      you're right. That thing would light up solid white like a christmas tree on the scanner and I think we all know with the IMMENSE training the operators receive, the first question will be: "Sir, were you aware that your underwear is glowing?" And I guarantee you'll end up with the underwear off in a few minutes.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    26. Re:Suspecious by psithurism · · Score: 1

      it will eventually make all the screeners quit...except maybe the pervy ones

      This is the right way to do it? While we continue to get increasingly invasive pat downs and scans, limit the people who dispense them to pervs?

    27. Re:Suspecious by megrims · · Score: 1

      Fuck that. They're not just doing their job. They, like everyone else, are 100% responsible for their actions both at work and elsewhere.

    28. Re:Suspecious by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      Everyone's doing this wrong. the TSA will never stop their pat-downs while the public is afraid of being groped, and this anti-screening day supposedly set for tomorrow (sort of a carbon-based DDOS) isn't the solution either. You want to stop the intrusive behavior? Simple. Grind on the screener's hands while moaning loudly and gyrating your hips. It may not change the official policy, but it will eventually make all the screeners quit. Well, except maybe the pervy ones.

      No, no, no, just go through the security line butt naked with your clothes in a trash bag that get put on the carry on x-ray conveyor. No need for a scanner or a pat down.

    29. Re:Suspecious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... What if a gent has - for some of the known reasons - that organ in the state known of as "in erection" during the intimate pat down? Some freedom shelters may enjoy it, some may not so much. Will the properly describable as "L'homme armé" be considered an imminent threat an immediately gunned down?

    30. Re:Suspecious by Arterion · · Score: 1

      You sure that's not robe and wizard hat?

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
  3. Might save your gonads from radiation too by Dr_Ken · · Score: 1

    Frisking bad as it is, is unlikely to give you cancer, deform your eggs/sperm, or sterilize you. So there's that.

    --
    "If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
    1. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by orphiuchus · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know, the government has assured me that there is no risk of any of that stuff...

    2. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      If X-ray backscatter machines could sterilize you, you'd be sterile ten times over already from background radiation.

    3. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      If X-ray backscatter machines could sterilize you, you'd be sterile ten times over already from background radiation.

      No, because the magnitude of background radiation is much much lower, disorganized, diffused by the Earth's atmosphere and electromagnetic field, non-directional, and not pointed in an organized fashion directly at your body, and doesn't reach nearly the energy levels of the backscatter machine. Especially when operators make mistakes with the machine that cause people to get even more exposure than they are supposed to, or to be exposed longer than the 2 seconds they are supposed to, that all the numbers validating its safety are based on -- when they make someone stand in the scanner for a few minutes with it running, the person is getting massive amounts of harmful radiation exposure, way beyond what is safe or indicated.

    4. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that one cannot Air Brush ones underwear with it. One could write notices like, "Tell Mama that Daddy says Hi."

    5. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're that worried about xray radiation, don't fly! The radiation from the backscatter xray is only equivalent to 4 minutes of flight time for the typical scan time so even if you are in the scanner for a full 2 minutes it's only equal to the dosage you are going to get on a short flight.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Frisking bad as it is, is unlikely to give you cancer, deform your eggs/sperm, or sterilize you. So there's that.

      Has anyone done a study on that? What's the cancer risk of those scans? Say it's 1 out of X million. So can we be sure that out of X million gonad gropes they're not going to cause permanent injury to the "target"? Or the risk ( probability * impact) of injury is less than the risk ( probability * impact) of cancer?

      Apparently there are 700 million scans a year in the USA.

      Maybe they should skip the x ray scanners and use millimeter wave scanners instead?

      FWIW, apparently the Israelis don't use such scanners: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=2941610&sponsor=

      --
    7. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by afidel · · Score: 1

      Troll, really? I stated a fact that is on topic, how is that trolling?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by meddle99 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would paint some really big junk on my undies...

    9. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even if that's true, why are you defending fascism? Seriously. Is there any level of ogvernment intrusion into your privacy that you would object to? Any at all?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, privacy concerns are quite separate from medical concerns. I object to the intrusiveness of the scans in the strongest terms possible but I also object to uninformed anti-science and technology mumbo-jumbo.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The goal of the Israelis is airport security. The goal of the TSA is increased pubic acceptance of fascism. You can see the difference.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by SoTerrified · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've hit on the main issue I have when people call these machines 'safe'. I accept that, under normal operation, they are safe. In the hands of a trained radiologist, I would not hesitate. But these machines are being operated by security people who are barely competent to work at McDonalds. I have already seen with my own eyes evidence of the machines not being used in the way they were intended and more importantly tested. And that's why I reject all claims that they are 'harmless' and will opt for a pat-down. Embarrassment I can recover from.

    13. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I think this whole controversy from beginning (obtaining the machines) to end (the protest movement) is bogus.

      Why do we have this machines? Because there is a threat that has been shown to be reasonable that these machines prevent? Can anybody point to a hijacking these machines *would* have prevented, but that wasn't preventable with the technology we already had? Almost certainly not. We are doing this simply to show we *can*. This is, unfortunately, a typical American approach to any kind of complicated problem: gamble on a quick technological fix. It doesn't hurt that this makes great security theater. Hiring more and better trained agents is not politically advantageous, because if people breeze through security and *don't* get hijacked, they won't notice anything but the high and expensive head count. Send them through a machine that transmits naked pictures of them into the next room, and they *will* notice their tax dollars at work, even though that has no practical utility.

      Now the protest side is totally bogus too. So the machine sends a naked picture of me to a guy in the next room, so what? I walk to the showers at the gym and everyone in the locker room is naked. And if the guy watching the scanner gets off on watching *my* naked body, what do *I* care? He's obviously got bigger problems than I do.

      No, the real problem is that this whole bogus affair takes money, time and focus away from real security concerns.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      what if the person who frisks you is irradiated from countless of hours near a xray emitter?

    15. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by HiThere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There have been many studies. They say "When used properly, the machines don't present unreasonable risk.". Unreasonable means that they're about what a dental X-ray would be.

      The kicker is "properly", The people running those machines have not been well trained, and you aren't their customer. So they don't really bother about proper use. Convenient (for them) use is more what they consider.

      (Ever notice that when you get a dental X-ray you wear a lead apron?)

      Nobody has done a study of the exposure in the environments in which those machines are used. I expect that there's a high variability, with some part of the curve coming down in the "rather dangerous" section.

      You don't pay more for the clowns at a security theater than you must. The money gets reserved for the approved contractors.
      (Sorry, this last paragraph is pure cynicism. But I still feel it's probably correct.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The radiation from the backscatter xray is only equivalent to 4 minutes of flight time for the typical scan time

      You are claiming an equivalency that is only based on one raw measure of the exposure, one of the least important measures of exposure (thermal energy), and misses important points.

      The higher the energy of the radiation, the deeper into the body it will penetrate before it is absorbed. The lower energy radiation you experience in flight is reflected by the skin. The higher energy of backscatter machines is absorbed inside the body and can potentially effect the brain and the genitals. It might lead to sterilization or cancer.

      The ionizing radiation you are exposed to on a backscatter machine is different and more harmful than the radiation you would be exposed to when flying, it is a different kind of radiation in magnitude.

      The mere total exposure amount hides important factors such as the proportion absorbed VS the proportion harmlessly reflected.

    17. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by mibe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The calculated dosage is based on an average over your whole body (like any medical imaging would be, but obviously never goes through your whole body - instead it's all in your skin. Shouldn't this be recalculated? Either way, the risk is non-zero, same as the risk for getting killed by a terrorist. The question is, which risk is greater? As a scientist and a skeptic, I'm not at all convinced that bombarding EVERYONE with x-rays is the less harmful option.

    18. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by lgw · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you objected to this "in the strongest terms possible", you wouldn't make any statements that could be taken as supporting it, now would you? Or do you think that your rights are important, but less important than "someone is wrong on the internet"? Your priorities seem off, to me.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by rikkards · · Score: 1

      I do agree your post is not really trollish, however to answer it further, I would rather get radiation from the flight than radiation from the flight AND the backscatter. Remember radiation exposure is cumulative and I would rather avoid any I can if given an alternative. Plus there is nothing saying it could be the one time that actually causes cancer.

    20. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Unreasonable means that they're about what a dental X-ray would be.

      That's funny, the dental x ray sales people are using the reverse argument to compare the safety of their products ;).

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/us/23scan.html?pagewanted=all

      [Dr. Mah] played down health concerns, saying a cone-beam scan produces no more radiation than a whole-body scan at the airport.

      Equating a cone-beam scan with an airport scan is "very wrong -- by a lot," said Dr. David Brenner, who directs the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center. In fact, cone-beam scanners can be several hundred times as powerful, he said.

      Dr. Brenner said that a child faces up to a 1-in-10,000 chance of developing cancer from a single cone-beam scan.

      Maybe we should get Dr Banner's opinion on radiation safety too... ;)

      --
    21. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They already said based on the radiation levels and 600 million passengers that about 10 people per year will die from cancer from this screening.

      I think the number is lower. Many will die from other causes first.

      But say it is 10 and it stops 1 airplane incident per 10 years- it's a wash to a massive savings of life.

      Personally, I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next. You are not scanned, there is high density of targets, and it would paralyze travel-- again.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    22. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by chicago_scott · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the flight actually serves a purpose and gets you to your destination.

      Body scanners are just security theater and offer you nothing positive in return.

    23. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by formfeed · · Score: 1

      because the magnitude of background radiation is much much lower

      Right! As I said it earlier: Don't confuse the numbers they give you -whole body equivalent (basically skin as percentage of body weight)- with the actual dose.

      And don't confuse the specific risks (skin cancer, genitals) with the "overall" risk.

      Especially when operators make mistakes

      No, let's not even think of the very, very remote possibility of the government making mistakes and exposing people to harmful radiation.

    24. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      They already said based on the radiation levels and 600 million passengers that about 10 people per year will die from cancer from this screening.

      I think the number is lower. Many will die from other causes first.

      But say it is 10 and it stops 1 airplane incident per 10 years- it's a wash to a massive savings of life.

      Except that the odds of it actually being responsible for stopping any airplane incidents are slim at the very best.

      The fact of the matter is that this money could be put to much more effective uses simply by hiring qualified personnel and conducting more effective screening. This whole scanner thing is pure theater. It is just another highly visible annoyance to make people feel safer.

      Personally, I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next. You are not scanned, there is high density of targets, and it would paralyze travel-- again.

      Or the airport itself... Or a bus/train depot... Or any sufficiently crowded and insecure location...

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    25. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by lordmage · · Score: 1

      We must remember the many years that Xray machines were used to "Fit shoes". Xrays were considered fine for many years... until they were not.

      As are so many things considered fine until they are not.

      Except Saccharin which was considered a carcinogen and now is not.

      --
      I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
    26. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by bwayne314 · · Score: 1

      That's like saying "if light could set you on fire then you'd have burst into flame ten times over from all that light you absorbed over your lifetime"

      Fortunately radiation and light doesn't exactly work like that over long periods of exposure - the magnitude is important too, not just total lifetime exposure.

    27. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by afidel · · Score: 1

      I think we need to have an open, honest, and informed debate about the privacy issues. What I don't want is an uninformed mob storming the gates, while I happen to agree with the angry stupid mob this time I rather detest the general principal because it's been abused so many times before against the ideals of freedom and a healthy democracy.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    28. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. They haven't attacked a security check point yet because the terrorist threat is much smaller than the US Government would have you believe. I'm not saying it doesn't exist at all, but if you listen to a US politician, we are in constant danger of terrorists blowing themselves up all around us. I really don't think that is the case. If it were, terrorists would be attacking sporting events, malls, security checkpoints, basically anywhere a lot of people are gathered. So tell me, Mr. Representative, where are they? If it is as much of a threat that its made out to be, then we would have seen a lot more of this stuff going on.

    29. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 1

      FUD!
      nonsense! You're just pulling numbers out of your hat to scare people.

      The dose from one trip through the xray backscatter scanner is 0.05 Sv, which is completely negligible compared to any other x-ray diagnostic.
      Wikipedia compares this dose to the radiation from being in an airplane (higher in the atmosphere) for 6 hours is 20 Sv. 200-400 times greater.

    30. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by afidel · · Score: 1

      Uh, above/in the upper troposphere there's plenty of ionizing radiation to be had.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    31. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      No, because the magnitude of background radiation is much much lower, disorganized, diffused by the Earth's atmosphere and electromagnetic field, non-directional, and not pointed in an organized fashion directly at your body, and doesn't reach nearly the energy levels of the backscatter machine.

      I'm not convinced you didn't just mix random, scientific-sounding words together. "Magnitude" here means "quantity", a measure of "how much". Quantity cannot be disorganized, diffuse, nondirectional, or "not pointed in an organized fashion". However, those four adjectives (well, one phrase) all mean the same thing. Regardless, you measure background radiation exposure to humans with a dosimeter attached to the human. That makes it easy to correct for the influence of the atmosphere, Earth's magnetic field, standing inside buildings, and other protective effects. (Also, a lot of the radiation doesn't come from the Sun, but rather from terrestrial sources like rocks.) The "organized fashion" isn't relevant -- if the radiation passes through your body, it has its effect. The only way spatial or temporal concentration matters if you push past the linear "causes cancer, rarely" regime into the "fatal to cells" regime (like what happens with a UV-caused sunburn, or with radiation poisoning). Even five minutes (see below) in a scanner where all the energy is deposited near the skin doesn't meet that.

      ...when they make someone stand in the scanner for a few minutes with it running, the person is getting massive amounts of harmful radiation exposure, way beyond what is safe or indicated.

      It's only emitting X-rays while it's making the scan, not while you're standing in it. But, let's try some numbers. If you stood in the machine for 5 minutes of continuous scanning instead of 2 seconds, you'd receive as much as 1.5 millirem of radiation, which is equivalent to a 5-hour airplane flight. So, if that fits your definition of "masssive amounts of harmful radiation", I suggest avoiding airplanes altogether.

    32. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Distribution of the dosage only matters if you get a high enough concentration of radiation that it becomes fatal to cells rather than simply carcinogenic. The carcinogenic effect of radiation is linear in the radiation dose and appears to have no "safe" level. (That is, there's no quantity of radiation so small that it has zero effect.) Estimates say that the skin receives a 2-orders-of-magnitude higher dose per volume than the trivial body average. That still puts it at a very low radiation dose to the skin.

      Now, it might mean that you end up with skin cancer instead of lung cancer, but the frequency of causing cancer should be the same, since the total dosage is constant; only the distribution is wrong.

    33. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next.

      They don't have to. All of this is free publicity.

    34. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by lgw · · Score: 1

      I understand where you're coming from, but can you cite a historical example (in any culture, in any time) when the will of the people overrode the will of a government bureaucracy as a result of "informed debate" and not "a mob storming the gates"? That's not how people work.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    35. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      One backscatter X-ray is a 10 microrem dose. Background radiation on the ground is 28 microrem per hour.

      You'd have to undergo one backscatter X-ray per 20 minutes to receive exposure to radiation equal to standing on the ground doing nothing.

      Radiation intensity doesn't matter for carcinogenic and mutagenic effects; it only becomes relevant at much higher intensities, when it becomes sufficient to cause cell death.

    36. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by afidel · · Score: 1

      Sure, when the supreme court allowed civil forfeiture via eminent domain there was a bit of an uproar but no real call to action yet almost every state passed a law or amendment banning the practice and that's just a recent example.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    37. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Personally, I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next

      Because then we would streamline security. Surely a 30 minute reminder we're scared of them, followed by radiation/groping, given to everyone who flies in America is worth more to them then the body count from blowing up the line.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    38. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by lgw · · Score: 1

      That was an example though of each state codifying its existing practice. They didn't change their minds on anything (AFAIK).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    39. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by treeves · · Score: 1

      I believe the increased radiation you receive during air travel is mainly cosmic rays, and that is certainly higher energy radiation than what is generated by these scanners. Nevertheless I am opposed to the intrusiveness and the fact that the whole scheme is aimed at the wrong group of people.

      Second, the nervous system, including the brain, is actually the most resistant to radiation damage in the whole body, while ova and sperm are the most sensitive.

      Third, magnitude means quantity, while I think you are arguing that the scanner radiation is different in kind (quality), so you seem to contradict yourself.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    40. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by treeves · · Score: 1

      If it's causing cell death, then it's clearly gone past the point where it's causing cancer or mutation. By definition, if it's cancer or a mutation, it's still alive.
      I'm not sure that radiation intensity has no bearing on carcinogenicity or mutagenicity. I think I'd rather have 1 rem of low energy gamma than one rem of Co-60 gamma radiation.
      Your point is correct though: if it's 10 microrem, it's nothing to worry about.
      I simply object to the intrusiveness and lack of effectiveness of the whole thing.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    41. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. really does need a 'citation required' mod. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that while that sounds plausible I'd like to see some evidence for your claims.

      How do you know that decades of background radiation absorbed while "living your life" isn't as bad (or worse) as 2 minutes of 'a mistake' in one of these machines?

    42. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the terrorist attack is against a plane with 20 people on it?

      What if the security measures fail (they already have) and a plane goes out of the sky?

      I don't like waiting 5 hours in line to make it through a security checkpoint looking over my shoulder the whole time wondering if someone has explosives in a suitcase. I do not like my kids being molested by airport security. I do not like feeling like if I take something valuable through airport security it will be stolen by security. I do not like the idea some security guard can arbitrarily shove an anal probe up my pooper for an arbitary reason. I do not like the idea of someone rummaging through my baggage and arbitrarily discarding things they feel are security concerns to protect me. I believe it's especially hideous that I have no recourse; that these people have no professional standards and the public cannot complain and get them fired.

      These people, much like yourself, are dangerous to any reasonable, functioning society and are institutionally insane.

    43. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Solandri · · Score: 1

      That's something I noticed when bringing this point up too. Even though I'm against the scans (for 4th amendment reasons), I point out that the radiation does is negligible compared to what you're exposing yourself to during the flight, and suddenly I'm accused of being a fascist who wants to see nude pictures of air travelers.

      I think what happens is people pigeonhole things into "good" and "bad" categories. If something is "good", then anything they read about it being bad must be false. If something is "bad", then anything they read about it being bad must be true. It's an intellectual shortcut akin to hopping on the bandwagon and dogpiling. Works most of the time, but when it fails it makes people do really stupid things like mark factually correct points as a troll.

    44. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      There were reports last night that the terrorist are making statements to the fact that they are laughing their asses off right now. They spend a few thousand putting some C4 in a printer cartridge. We spend BILLIONS to treat the entire flying population like cattle. Some pundit came on to say that he thought they were blustering. The terrorist are defeated and this was just an attempt to try to claim a victory.

      WTF!! They fucking WON! They spent basically nothing, and risked less. I get to spend hours waiting in a line to be gate-raped by someone in a government make-work program. From the jack-ass terrorists point of view, THAT'S FUNNY!! No way in hell they are dumb enough to go screwing with the situation now. They've got us where they want us.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    45. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I would rather get radiation from the flight than radiation from the flight AND the backscatter. Remember radiation exposure is cumulative and I would rather avoid any I can if given an alternative

      The dose is cumulative, but mostly limited to your outer layer of skin cells which will slough off in a few days or weeks anyway. The radiation you get from flying at altitude ranges from the same as the scanners to stuff which will go completely through your body wreaking a path of molecular destruction. The flight is much, much worse for you than the scanners if you're that worried about your radiation exposure.

    46. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That's actually been recently studied. The main question is really at the very low end of the spectrum -- is there some low rate at which the body is able to "heal" as a reaction to the exposure. As far as I've read, it seems that carcinogenic effect and total exposure are linear throughout the low-intensity regime.

      I don't think it's effective, either, but that doesn't stop me from being annoyed when everyone and their dog brings up the canard of "they're causing cancer with their mysterious radiations".

    47. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not so sure about that. I'm sure that when I eventually give in to the nearly hard coded response of snapping the TSA molester's fingers one by one there will be repercussions.

    48. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by sjames · · Score: 1

      I don't see wht the terrorists would bother attacking at all anymore, they've gotten our own government to do the work for them now.

      In just a few short years we have gone from the "land of the free and the home of the brave" to one where a father will stand by and watch as his daughter is terrorized and screaming "NO, STOP TOUCHING ME" and then walk away meekly with his tail between his legs. Thjere was a time when doing that was a great way to get yourself killed, government employee or not.

    49. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      You're thousands of times more likely to die falling down stairs, slipping in your tub, or falling off a ladder than by a terrorist attack, and yet I don't see a call for safety people to tickle my taint before attempting any of those activities.

      Or for a better perspective, heart disease kills 1 million people in the US alone every year, yet funding for that is mere pocket change compared to the ludicrous amount being spent on this worthless security theater. Or for even more perspective, 7 of the top 10 things most likely to kill you are diseases which receive a mere fraction of the funding that defense and "security" does. The other three either take the form of an accident or a crime. Terrorism is almost dead last, ranking below plane crashes, being struck by lightning, and is just barely above the probability of being killed by a meteor.

      You want to save lives? Start dumping billions/trillions into R&D for medical treatments and cures. Or perhaps, develop a real health care plan so that problems are diagnosed earlier for better treatment. But that makes too much sense. This is America. We're not known for common sense. We're known for having balls bigger than our brains.

      America! Fuck Yeah!

      --
      ~X~
    50. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Would it be against the law to wear a heavy metal codpiece type thing? Let them grope.....they'll just get bruised knuckles...and if you do get scanned, well, no radiation on your junk that way.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    51. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that X-rays aren't harmful to humans?

    52. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the specs on these devices are not released, they have not been tested to medical standards, and they are not regulated as medical devices.

    53. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by locallyunscene · · Score: 3, Funny

      The goal of the Israelis is airport security. The goal of the TSA is increased pubic acceptance of fascism. You can see the difference.

      Most appropriate. Typo. Ever.

    54. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by horza · · Score: 1

      I am sure you know far more than me about this subject, but your explanation is lacking as it does not make logical sense. If x-ray radiation from a backscatter machine was significantly lower than background radiation, which is what you are implying, then you would not be able to determine an image as your x-rays would be indistinguishable amonst the background noise.

      Wikipedia states that the radiation level from the backscatter x-ray is 3,600,000 times the level of background radiation. This sounds significantly higher, not lower.

      Phillip.

    55. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      You mean like the ones that spray mace when you do a pelvic thrust?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    56. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      I just used confusing wording and skipped an important point.

      The X-ray backscatter machines have radiation *intensities* that are much higher than background, of course.

      At "low" radiation intensities (which includes these devices), damage (like cancer) is simply linearly proportional to the dose -- the total amount of radiation energy dumped into your body, adjusted for the effectiveness on humans of that particular type of radiation.

      So you're comparing the effects of continual exposure to the background radiation to 2-second bursts of X-ray backscatter machines.

    57. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by theY4Kman · · Score: 1

      I like to think it's a couple kids who put baby powder in some toner cartridges.

    58. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      I found an excellent cure for this; I moved overseas. The America of my youth is a lot more like the USSR we feared now.

      And I'm not telling you where, because then everybody would want to emigrate to Australia.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    59. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by orient · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next.

      Could it be because there are no real terrorists?

      --
      Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
    60. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Radiation" is too broad a term and I think this is where people are finding some kind of flame baiting happening.

    61. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like he was in rough agreement. But he didn't address the issue of variability when used by untrained personnel, or the safety precautions usually taken by a dentist's office.

      FWIW, I understand that the wave length of radiation used is different, and that the airport scanners deposit all of their energy in a thin layer of tissue near the epidermis, while dental scanners are designed to penetrate tooth and bone. And it is my supposition that the significant damage is caused by damage to the reproductive mechanisms of the cell, usually while it is in the process of dividing. As such, rapidly dividing cells, such as those of the epidermal layer, are more succeptible to damage than are bone cells. (Though if you damage the cells making blood, you can get a kind of leukemia...actually several different kinds of leukemia can be caused by this, but other kinds have other causes.)

      OTOH, I'm not a radiologist. If I thought he was speaking as a radiologist, rather than as someone trying to sell xray equipment without really lying, then I'd take his comments more seriously. As it is I only notice that you didn't mention him quoting any research, so I take his words as literally true, but likely to be misleading.

      And, as I said at the start, there seems to be rough agreement between what he was saying and what I said.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    62. Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      What country could be so bad that we'd want to move to Australia instead? ;)

  4. Pat downs by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will just get you an enhanced pat down, which you could opt for in the first place.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Pat downs by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Yup. All this does is:
      Waste your money
      Get you a dose of radiation while still ending in a patdown

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:Pat downs by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Funny

      On the plus side, it feels like wearing nothing at all! Nothing at all! Nothing at all!

      (Stupid sexy Flanders...)

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    3. Re:Pat downs by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of placing "hidden" messages (metal ink or thread) in yout under wear.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Pat downs by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Normally, yeah, I’d call this self-defeating, but you can’t opt out of the scanner in the UK.

      If you’re concerned about the radiation from the scanner and you’re traveling (or should I say travelling) in the UK, would this be a viable option to prevent your gonads from getting irradiated at the cost of a more uncomfortable exam?

      (Personally my issue with the scanner isn’t the radiation, but for some people it is.)

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    5. Re:Pat downs by tbischel · · Score: 1

      people need to realize there is now an alternative!

    6. Re:Pat downs by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >(Personally my issue with the scanner isn’t the radiation, but for some people it is.)

      For some people, dosimetry is really important because it has an effect on how often they can work.
      They aren't allowed to wear meters in the scan. They don't know what their total dosage is. They can't even estimate it because the information isn't disclosed.

      Basically, people are claiming that an unknown, undisclosed amount of X-Ray exposure is perfectly safe in all circumstances, to people at all stages of life (e.g., first trimester fetus), even people in radiological professions and even people who undergo significant amounts of irradiation for medical reasons.

      There is no way to draw an equivalence across all these groups. And, no, you are NOT exposed to a direct equivalent of a backscatter X-Ray in "two minutes of flight". It's not equivalent, and that often-quoted statement did not come from a radiologist or any expert with a relevant background.

      What is the precise dosage of the backscatter, how is it calibrated, and how can it be independently verified? And why isn't my Congressman asking these questions?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:Pat downs by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what they see on these things that's useful anyway. When I went through a few months ago they had to pat down my ass after the scan, and I didn't even have anything in my pocket.

    8. Re:Pat downs by Achra · · Score: 1
      Actually, no. When you opt out of the ionizing photon radiation (which will be skillfully administrated by a goon who earns less than the fry cook at McDonald's), you will receive a Standard Pat-Down. When they come up with something anomalous, either from the standard pat-down or the radiation (such as not being able to determine your circumcision status), then an Enhanced Pat-Down will be administered. The difference (in terms of personal privacy) is the difference between receiving a fairly standard frisk search and that of receiving a fairly intrusive just shy of strip-search.

      Me? I'll just choose the standard pat-down to begin with, and avoid having a gloved TSA agent's hand in my underwear.

      --
      Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
  5. Problem is... by frozentier · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they can't see ALL of you, then they take you aside and pat you down. So with this device, instead of seeing you, they are going to take you aside and feel you up.

  6. Similar... by BobSutan · · Score: 1

    I was just thinking about something like this last night. I wonder why aluminum foil couldn't just be folded and inserted in a similar manner?

    --
    "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    1. Re:Similar... by Dr_Ken · · Score: 1

      Aluminum foil? There are some serious comfort issues with that choice of material.

      --
      "If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
    2. Re:Similar... by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Seriously? You don't think that stuffing aluminum foil into your pants would get you fast-tracked to the airport's office with no windows and a door that only opens from the outside?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:Similar... by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Why, is it illegal to have aluminium foil in your pants?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    4. Re:Similar... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      No, which is why you'd probably be released after a strip search. They would assume you were hiding something like drugs. They definitely have the mindset of "only those who have something to hide, hide." It doesn't justifiy it, but that's how it would go.

    5. Re:Similar... by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      It's suspicious. Are you naive enough to think that only people actually doing something "illegal" ever get searched and interrogated?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:Similar... by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      It's an unreasonable search, and they do not have a warrant. So what happened to the 4th Amendment?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    7. Re:Similar... by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I think it's very unreasonable for you to put aluminum foil in your underpants, and therefore perfectly reasonable for them to search you.

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    8. Re:Similar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can reason it very well - just not to you as it has no bearing on anything other than my sex life.

      By your logic, anything about you that is unreasonable is reason to search you. This is not what the 4th Amendment means. There has to be a specific reason to search someone, and being "odd" is not a good enough reason.

  7. Ahh.. that 80's feeling by RenHoek · · Score: 1

    And thus the underwear arms race began.. .. did I tell you about the nuke I'm hiding in my boxers? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

    1. Re:Ahh.. that 80's feeling by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I told them I had a rocket in my pocket, and they had me arrested.

      --

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

    2. Re:Ahh.. that 80's feeling by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      I told them I had a rocket in my pocket, and they had me arrested.

      Shoulda told them it was your magic pocket. That only merits public humiliation.

      (Seriously, though, who tagged this article "magic pocket"?)

  8. accessories by scosco62 · · Score: 1
    1. Re:accessories by bughunter · · Score: 1

      http://www.bcbin.com/

      Awesome. I know some married men who need to wear these daily.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  9. begging for a crotch grab by craftycoder · · Score: 1

    These will be popular among those who like stragers to grope them.

  10. Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    I wonder what your odds of dying from TSA-induced cancer vs. an airline crash are?

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Forget that. Wonder about the odds of dying from a car crash, since you and millions of Americans decided to avoid flying this year because of the patdowns and since driving is much, much more dangerous than flying.

      The TSA kills Americans.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by jeti · · Score: 1

      I've read that dying from cancer as a result of undergoing these scans is about as likely as being on a plane with a bomb.
      Both risks are negligible compared to getting a direct hit by lightning.

      So instead of buying this underwear, you should get an umbrella with an integrated lightning rod (they were quite popular once).

    3. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Well, your odds of dying from cancer induced from sitting in the airplane are substantially higher than your odds of dying from cancer induced by the screening.

    4. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Looks like 400-500 people die on the road over the thanksgiving holiday each year. It will be interesting to see if this number increases in 2010.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by jlusk4 · · Score: 1

      Um... No. Stupid Americans kill themselves. And sometimes take some of the rest of us with them.

    6. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They voted for this, so it's technically suicide.

    7. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by mibe · · Score: 1
      From this article: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20100113.html

      More importantly for our purposes, 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. ... Globally, about 2 billion passengers fly each year, so screening all passengers with backscatter X-ray scans could reasonably be expected to result in about 32 excess cancer deaths per year.

      This is assuming of course that the backscatter x-ray works the same way. I'm not a physicist, but at least one professor at UCSF has raised the concern ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html#ixzz155dhfUQO ) that calculating the dosage by averaging over the whole body will give you a false low dose because the radiation is reflected off the skin and so is more concentrated there. Of course there are very intelligent people on both sides of the discussion, but I think it's a moot point regarding risk/benefit because the risks as stated above by experts (even though they may actually be higher) are already greater than the number of people who currently die to terrorism. So, our protective measure results in more deaths per year than does airline terrorism. Again, take all this with a grain of salt because of confounding variables like age and other idiosyncratic factors (will they live long enough to develop cancer? are they more susceptible to cancer due to youth/genetics?), but I'm going to opt for the pat-down to err on the side of caution, as it were.

      The Wikipedia page has a good overview of the conflicting sources regarding the safety of the scanners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

    8. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder what your odds of dying from TSA-induced cancer vs. an airline crash are?

      • You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist
      • You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
      • You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
      • You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

      More. So really, can we just end the security theater?

    9. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by operagost · · Score: 1

      That will merely result in some kind of "crackdown" on drivers... probably adding more fourth-amendment-violating "sobriety checkpoints" even though intoxication has nothing to do with it.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Talderas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ~520 annual increase in traffic fatalities was the estimate due to people driving over flying. I believe there was also admittance that the backscatter would cause about 16 additional cancer deaths annually.

      Net effect is an estimated 536 increase in annual deaths.

      Loss of life due to terrorist attack against westerners from 2006 to 2008 was 12 deaths annually worldwide.

      The scanners are estimated to be more deadly than the terrorists have been.

      Our trade offs are brilliant.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    11. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by fejikso · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Forget that. Wonder about the odds of dying from a car crash, since you and millions of Americans decided to avoid flying this year because of the patdowns and since driving is much, much more dangerous than flying. The TSA kills Americans.

      The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.

      I have absolutely no problems being scanned or getting a deep patdown. One is in the same situation when you get a physical examination from your doctor. We have no problems with that because we don't want to risk our health. Why can't we do the same for our security?

      These officers deal with so many people that I would doubt they would find it pleasurable after the 10,000th traveler. And even if they find pleasure off of it, what's the big frickin' deal? What if I like going to work because there's somebody good-looking in my office? (totally hypothetical, because it's sadly not my case, ha) Does that make me a bad employee? Pff!

      You know what pisses me off the most at airports? Not hightened security, but the lack of electric outlets and free (or cheap) wifi. That aggravates me to no end.

    12. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by lgw · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is there any level of government intrusion into your privacy that you would object to? Do you have a secret love for Austrian corporals? Do you find yourself admiring black uniforms and jackboots?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      If you fly enough, cancer will kill you.
      Smart terrists would just go in as a pilot or ground crew to cause planes to crash.
      Smarter ones would just avoid planes like everybody else.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    14. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Sobriety tests usually aren't Fourth Amendment violations. Most states include some verbage about implied consent in their motor vehicle licensing process. Basically if you hold a drivers license and are operating a motor vehicle you have already provided consent to submit to a sobriety test at the request of police. Most States do happen to require their police to have grounds for suspicion before they ask to you do a sobriety test, but you have already given your implied permission.

      Searching vehicles, checking ID's of passengers, and other things that happen at these checkpoints may very well be Fourth Amendment violations though.

    15. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Polumna · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, seriously. Nobody ever looks at the positives in this whole thing. Missing connecting flights while your girlfriend and/or mother gets groped by someone who is clearly qualified by the virtue of a high school diploma is a small price to pay for the convenience of hour-and-a-forty-five-minute lines for roller coasters suddenly seeming reasonable. They're exactly like safety doctors... brilliant analogy.

    16. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by natehoy · · Score: 0, Troll

      You know what pisses me off the most at airports? Not hightened security, but the lack of electric outlets and free (or cheap) wifi. That aggravates me to no end.

      Hey, at over a million bucks a line plus 4 employees due to federal security mandates, there's no money left for the airport authorities to put in public electrical outlets or offer free WiFi. If you want entertainment, sit somewhere you can watch the theater your billions of dollars of tax and airline dollars are paying for - security theater.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    17. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by fejikso · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, right, they get *GROPED*. What an exaggeration. It's just a damn inspection. If you're having those kind of fantasies perhaps you're too repressed or watch too much porn (or both).

      If they don't want to get touched, then they shouldn't object to the scans.

    18. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Stray7Xi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.

      The part you don't understand is a lot of travelers aren't afraid of TSA. They're afraid of a government free to ignore our constitutional rights. They're afraid of people disappearing in the night and ending up in secret prisons.

      No thank you. 9/11 was a nuisance. Tyranny would be a real tragedy. Maybe you should get over your irrational fear of "terrorism" instead of telling people their fear of the government is irrational.

      What purpose do these security screenings serve except to inspire a culture of fear. I have trouble differentiating the TSA from Al Qaeda in that regard.

    19. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      It's a different kind of radiation, and not directly comparable.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    20. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Until the TSA discloses specific dosimetry information, we can't answer that question.

      What are the odds of the first-trimester fetus that you don't know about yet getting cancer from an unknown x-ray dose?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    21. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      I'm sure your girlfriend and/or mother is quite impressed by your e-gallantry in standing up for the poor defenseless women-folk whose honor and virtue might be threatened.

    22. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      If they don't want to get touched, then they shouldn't object to the scans.

      Logical fallacy: false dilemma.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    23. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by briareus · · Score: 1

      We have no problems with that because we don't want to risk our health. Why can't we do the same for our security?

      Because the TSA isn't about security. It's about security theater. There's a significant difference.

    24. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      They're quite comparable. That's the usefulness of measuring radiation exposure in units that are adjusted for the radiation's impact on humans, like Sieverts or rem.

      If you prefer, though, there are useful comparisons that involve X-ray sources.

    25. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      They voted for this, so it's technically suicide.

      Who voted for this, exactly?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    26. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Except if you're driving out of state, you didn't give consent of anything to that state. Do you really think they'll be letting through all the traffic with out-of-state license plates? I don't expect that. So I'd say it's still a violation.

    27. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      You know what pisses me off the most at airports? Not hightened security, but the lack of electric outlets and free (or cheap) wifi. That aggravates me to no end.

      Hey, at over a million bucks a line plus 4 employees due to federal security mandates, there's no money left for the airport authorities to put in public electrical outlets or offer free WiFi.

      That's stupid. Why on earth would they offer free WiFi when they can charge you money for it? After all, it's not like, after check-in, you can go somewhere else until it's time for your flight... Not unless you want to go through check-in again.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    28. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Forget that. Wonder about the odds of dying from a car crash, since you and millions of Americans decided to avoid flying this year because of the patdowns and since driving is much, much more dangerous than flying. The TSA kills Americans.

      The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths.

      I have personally stopped flying. I'll drive anywhere I have to. Not solely because of the scanners or pat-downs... But because it's become such a tremendous inconvenience.

      Used to be you could hop in a plane, snooze for a couple hours, and be at your destination. These days it's hours of lines, invasions of privacy, more waiting, delays, shuffling from one gate to another... It's easier just to drive.

      Unfortunately, it is less safe to drive.

      These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.

      I have absolutely no problems being scanned or getting a deep patdown. One is in the same situation when you get a physical examination from your doctor. We have no problems with that because we don't want to risk our health. Why can't we do the same for our security?

      When I choose to go to a doctor and get an exam it is all entirely voluntary. I am not required to go any procedures I don't want. The same is not true when I try to fly home for the holidays... I am required to undergo some kind of invasion of my privacy.

      These officers deal with so many people that I would doubt they would find it pleasurable after the 10,000th traveler. And even if they find pleasure off of it, what's the big frickin' deal?

      Doctors are expected to be professionals. There are things that are and aren't allowed. And if you cross the line you'll be fired or sued for malpractice. It happens.

      If my wife goes to the gynecologist and he's getting off on examining her I'm going to be pretty angry about that. That's not appropriate. And I'm sure as hell not going to tolerate it.

      And the standards for hiring these TSA employees are significantly lower.

      You may be OK with some random stranger getting his rocks off by fondling your child, but I'm not.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    29. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Well, your odds of dying from cancer induced from sitting in the airplane are substantially higher than your odds of dying from cancer induced by the screening.

      Are you qualified, medically speaking, to make this statement?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    30. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      Lots of people died on 9/11. That's bad. And I sure as hell don't want any more people to die.

      But the reaction has just been silly.

      It isn't like we've never had a terrorist attack here in the US before. It isn't like terrorism never existed before. There were several previous attempts to blow up the World Trade Center... And plenty of attacks on British soil over the years... And plenty of home-grown terrorism like the Unabomber and Mr. McVeigh and the anti-abortionists...

      So now we're willing to trade prisoners off to different countries so they can be "interrogated" more creatively... Or we'll just torture them here at home instead... And we hold people for years without actually charging them with anything... And we listen in on innocent citizens... And harass people based on nothing more than their ethnicity or religion... And we have no problem trading tons of freedom for very little security...

      The point of terrorism is to inspire fear. In that regard they've been amazingly successful.

      We were originally told that the terrorists hate our freedom... So is that the plan then? Get rid of all our freedom and the terrorists will have no reason to attack us?

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    31. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      As long as I'm allowed to use the work of others as published in peer-reviewed scientific studies, then yes.

    32. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Polumna · · Score: 1

      Well if if my blatantly sarcastic appeal to emotion was that obvious, I guess I'll take the printout of my post off the refrigerator. :(

    33. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Al Qaeda did not harm people who voted for them. TSA does.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    34. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most States do happen to require their police to have grounds for suspicion before they ask to you do a sobriety test

      The checkpoints where everybody gets pulled over and submits to a sobriety check? Those checkpoints? No grounds for suspicion are necessary.

      Or maybe you were thinking of something different.

    35. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a coward. I hope you like to bend over for the TSA next. Don't worry, you don't get to decide "how deep" it goes.

      80% of Americans like new rules. It just shows that Americans are a bunch of cowards. Unlike people like Benjamin Franklin, today's politicians are a bunch of cowards too.... Prison USA - the terrorists could not have been more successful.

    36. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Except if you're driving out of state, you didn't give consent of anything to that state.

      Legally, you probably did as soon as you operated a motor vehicle in that State. This depends on the wording of the local law, but every one I've ever read says you provide consent as soon as you operate a vehicle within the State. Implied consent laws vary by state, so if the state you are operating in has implied consent laws then you are subject to it.

      A condition of States honoring out of state licenses is that the drivers be subject to the local laws. An out of State license (even from a state without implied consent) does not offer any protection from the local State laws.

    37. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      you make it sound like these checkpoints exist on every major street in America. I've lived in four different States in/near some of the largest cities in those States and I have literally never seen one in my life.

      I am sure that they happen in some parts of the country. But I'm also sure some States do not use these. That's why I didn't say all States require this.

    38. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by naasking · · Score: 1

      You could not possibly be awarded enough mod points. I only wish I had some to give. This should be on the front page.

    39. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      What published peer-reviewed studies on the backscatter scanners are you referencing? I'm curious, everything I've seen so far has extrapolated the risks based on other technologies.

    40. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Re-read your previous post. You said that this consent was given in the fine print of the paperwork of obtaining a license. If I don't fill out that state's paperwork, how do you suppose I'm giving implied consent?

    41. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is an end run around it. It is functionally the same. They know you have no options, how this is not duress I will never understand.

    42. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here you go, a similar number.

    43. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by mini+me · · Score: 1

      I see nothing wrong with offering flights with enhanced security measures for those who do not feel safe travelling on non-secured flights, but why does every single flight have to go through the same scrutiny? America claims to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. If someone is brave enough to board a plane that could be filled with terrorists waiting to do terrible things to them, why should they not be free to do so?

      Regular physical examinations by your doctor are important to ensure good health, but the government does not force anyone to visit the doctor. Why does the government feel it is so important to care about your safety while in the air, but not while on the ground? Enforcing regular doctor visits by law would save more lives than airport screening, yet only the latter is legally mandated. Why?

    44. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      What aspect of the backscatter scanners? There are a ton of papers out there about Compton backscattering.

      There isn't direct measurement of the frequency of the TSA's backscatter X-ray machines on cancer frequency, because that's far too difficult to measure. (You'd need hundreds of millions of scans on a test object to cause the equivalent of a 1% increase in chance of dying of cancer.) The impact of radiation on humans, though -- including radiation of this type and energy -- is well-studied enough to estimate the risks based on the known properties of the scanners.

    45. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Sobriety tests usually aren't Fourth Amendment violations. Most states include some verbage about implied consent in their motor vehicle licensing process. Basically if you hold a drivers license and are operating a motor vehicle you have already provided consent to submit to a sobriety test at the request of police.

      An interesting note here is that only certain sobriety tests are legally required. If the cop asks you to touch your nose, walk in a straight line, say the alphabet backwards, etc., those are unofficial tests meant to establish probable cause. You're not legally required to take those tests. They also have portable breathalizer tests that you're generally not legally required to take, as they're usually not approved as official toxicology tests.

      However, you are generally required to take the official toxicology scan that usually takes place at the police station, so if they think you've been drinking and driving (or using other drugs) they can take you to the station for a test.

      You can still refuse that, but you'll lose your license in most states.

      Of course, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't really legal advice, etc.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    46. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Generally it is. It is also codified in the State general law. Which is your responsibility to be aware of.

      Note I used the term process not simply application. If your licensing state is an implied consent state you are probably made aware of it at the time you obtained a license. That was nice of them. If you drive into another state you are expected to comply with local laws. As I'm not aware of any state that posts the entirety of their general law at all points of entry, it is a reasonable expectation that the onus is on the driver to be familiar with the laws of the other state.

      Would you expect to be able to contest speeding tickets because the Speed Limit signs didn't explicitly say that speeding is illegal? Would you expect out of state drivers to be exempt from seat belt regulations because nobody knocked on their window and informed them?

    47. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      I've looked into this in my own state (I'm assuming they vary). You are spot on for my state, I can decline all field tests and expect to go back to the station. If I still refuse there then I am boned.

      Interestingly, the only test that my state can compel is done by blood draw. And that can only be done through court order.

      I am also NAL. But I am an adult that enjoys driving and also enjoys alcohol. Though I don't do both at the same time, it is good to know what the relevant laws are.

    48. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Okay, any references then? You said you've reviewed them and they indicated there are no problems, so what are you referencing, specifically?

    49. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      What enhanced security measures? These things don't work.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    50. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Whether they work or not is irrelevant. The point is that they exist so let the people choose if they want to board a flight that has the high security rigmarole, the flight with minimal security, or the flight with no security. In other words, let the market decide.

    51. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by horza · · Score: 1

      It's only a trade-off if the backscatter machines actually successfully stop a terrorist hiding a bomb wrapped around their genitals. As this is pretty much zero, it's not a trade-off... it's just an expensive affront on dignity, human rights, and common sense. In fact diversion of funds away from real anti-terror measures (targetted surveillance, infiltration, etc) is probably meaning it is costing even more lives than if they didn't waste their money on expensive theatre. I strongly object to my money being wasted in this fashion.

      Phillip.

    52. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      It's only a trade-off if the backscatter machines actually successfully stop a terrorist hiding a bomb wrapped around their genitals. As this is pretty much zero, it's not a trade-off... it's just an expensive affront on dignity, human rights, and common sense.

      Exactly.

      I'm not going to spell it out here but think of the most commonly known method inmates use to smuggle things into prison through the checkpoint. These machines can only detect something external to your body, last time I checked even those enhanced pat downs didn't come with cavity searches. I'm not saying everyone should submit to a cavity search either, just pointing out that at some point you have to put your foot down and say "This is ridiculous, the 'solution' has become worse than the problem."

    53. Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      It is relevant, if someone wants a high security flight there isn't an option for it. There is just an annoying pretend security option.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
  11. you're still being exposed to x-rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://j.mp/cancer-ray

    Not good for breast cancer survivors, adolescents, or young children.

  12. It's unclear ... by Evardsson · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article: It's unclear whether it would lead to an automatic, more intrusive pat down by federal Transportation Security Administration officials.

    No, if the image is unclear, the TSA's reaction is not. If you are not sure, check out what Dave Barry went through when the image of his groin was "blurry" http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131338172/humorist-dave-barry-and-the-tsa

    --
    Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
    1. Re:It's unclear ... by dragin33 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If your have blurry junk you will get your junk touched by another man.

    2. Re:It's unclear ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Can't you request the gender of TSA screener who will be doing the fondling?

      Yeah. I know they have a staff of bull dykes to handle these requests. Not much chance that Megan Fox does this work between movies.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Christmas goose by drumcat · · Score: 1

    This is a solution that causes all sorts of problems. The reason they are scanning and ball-tapping is because they're afraid of underwear bombs. If you don't think this'll get you cavity searched, you're out of your mind!

    1. Re:Christmas goose by TheCycoONE · · Score: 4, Informative

      They don't do cavity searches, that's part of the bizarre theatre of it all. Part of the point of this article was that most people hide illicit things in areas which would require a cavity search and they just feel you up. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/

    2. Re:Christmas goose by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Funny

      A coworker went through the rapescan a couple months ago. Get this, though -- he was wearing a buttplug at the time and they didn't notice it. I think it was a metal one, too (he was caught by the metal detector first).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Christmas goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get this, though -- he was wearing a buttplug at the time and they didn't notice it.

      Do I dare ask? Oh, what the hell...

      Why was he wearing a buttplug at the airport?

    4. Re:Christmas goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mile deep club.

  14. Re:Suspicious by eudas · · Score: 1
    --
    Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
  15. From a buddy of mine by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Body scans and genital fondlings would save more lives if our government was paying to have them done in hospitals rather than airports."

    This of course assumes the scans are safe, but you get the idea...

    1. Re:From a buddy of mine by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Having a backscatter body scan done once a year is safer than having a single transmission X-ray taken.

      Of course, the resolution that the TSA uses is insufficient for proper medical imaging. A higher-resolution image would require a higher beam intensity.

    2. Re:From a buddy of mine by Blindman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why not do both?

      I see you aren't carrying a bomb, and you might want to get this mass checked out by a doctor. This would probably make the scanning more popular, although it might cause people without insurance to act suspicious when flying to get a free scan.

      --
      I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
    3. Re:From a buddy of mine by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm, why not combine the two. Not only will you get cleared through security at the airport but you'll also receive a free health screening. Just think of it... free colonoscopies, hysteroscopies, and breast exams. It'd be an incredible time saver to not have to schedule a separate examination. Heck it'd even help curb the worry about that at risk segment of the male population needing but not getting an annual mammo...

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:From a buddy of mine by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      If they detect a tumor but don't report it, can they be held liable?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:From a buddy of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's a difference. A transmission X-ray distributes exposure to all of your meaty innards, the backscatter full body scan distributes slightly less exposure to your skin only. I'm no doctor, but that's a significantly smaller area, meaning that its a significantly larger dose to your skin. In a world where experts are recommending wearing sunscreen if you're going outside _at all_, I'd like to avoid getting significant radiation exposure from unnecessary machines which aren't proven to be any more secure than the previously used system of annoying the fuck out of travelers.

      With that said, I think people's outrage over the "hurfdurf they're groping me sexually!!!!" is uncalled for. The TSA agent doesn't want to touch your fat ugly stuff. The TSA agent isn't getting off to touching your fat ugly stuff. They're going to do it equally to everyone who opts-out of TSA brand skin cancer. Get over yourselves damn, it!

      *obviously, that stuff about groping isn't responding directly to you blueg3

    6. Re:From a buddy of mine by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I have not seen any specific claim as to the intensity of the backscatter machines in question, nor have I seen anything about how the calibration is maintained, how often it is checked, who checks it and by what method, or how any of this can be independently verified.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:From a buddy of mine by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That's going to happen if you don't look for it.

    8. Re:From a buddy of mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad that the tech specs are classified, and all you get is their reassurance that is the case.... Oh yes, it's not governments ever would conduct experiments on the public....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
      http://www.nowpublic.com/world/u-s-conducted-syphilis-experiments-guatemala-without-consent

      It would not be surprising if someone from the government planted explosives that would not explode, then disappear into the system. The purpose simply to make all the sheep comply.

  16. Huge order for the produce recieved by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Apparently Omar Mohammad al-Talibani al-Q`aidi of Yemen just placed an order for one million of this new fangled thing.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  17. um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, if it is your private parts you are worried about... people might be embarrassed about their general shape.

  18. It's a religious thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know they will start giving people flack about this kind of underwear if people start using these regularly. If they do that, people should use the excuse this is a religious thing. Heck, isn't there a religion that already requires special underwear? (lol Mormons)

    Parents should be sure to get these for their kids to so they don't go to hell for letting them go through those scanners.

    Oh, and watch out for the TSA underpants gnomes.

  19. This has potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if you could use this material to write messages on your body?

    1. Re:This has potential by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      I wonder if you could use this material to write messages on your body?

      A TSA agent raped and murdered my wife. Find him and kill him.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  20. Horrible Idea by deadend44 · · Score: 1

    So now we're making a readily available concealing device that doesn't set-off metal detectors. I can guarantee that if they can't see what's in your underwear with the scanner then it will throw up red flags and they'll see what is in your underwear themselves. All this does is add an extra step and frustrate TSA agents.

    1. Re:Horrible Idea by pngwen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm all for frustrating TSA agents. Those people are traitors to the cause of liberty. 200 years ago, they would have all been hanged. I think frustrating them is a little less extreme, don't you?

      --
      I am the penguin that codes in the night.
    2. Re:Horrible Idea by Myopic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I reluctantly agree with this point. Although I am generally a law-and-order kind of guy, I think airport security is outside any reasonable threshold along the sliding scale of security, and therefore I think it is unethical for any individual to participate in the enforcement of that security. Basically what I'm saying is fuck those guys, they must be assholes if they agree to do that job.

    3. Re:Horrible Idea by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >Basically what I'm saying is fuck those guys, they must be assholes if they agree to do that job.

      More likely they are desperate. They have been rejected for police jobs and other civil service jobs. With the TSA they get federal benefits (increases like clockwork, it's better entry-level benefits than you'll get anywhere else).

      Once you get in the door at a place like that, you're not going to voluntarily leave. If you can psyche yourself up to work a job where you cut the assholes out of pigs or work at a machine that's likely to pull your thumbs off, you can do this.

      The real problem is that they aren't *professionals*. I think the airport security job at the lowest level should require years of police, military police, or private security experience and a degree in criminal justice. Instead, it's an entry-level vocational rehab job.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:Horrible Idea by pngwen · · Score: 1

      So then basically they feel they are entitled to take away other's civil liberties for their own gains? Maybe hanging isn't too extreme after all!

      --
      I am the penguin that codes in the night.
    5. Re:Horrible Idea by eap · · Score: 1

      I'm all for frustrating TSA agents. Those people are traitors to the cause of liberty. 200 years ago, they would have all been hanged. I think frustrating them is a little less extreme, don't you?

      Yes, and subscribing to the wisdom of 200 years ago sets an excellent standard. Slavery, no rights for women, lethal working conditions. I'm glad we're moving back to these core values.

  21. fuck the tsa by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Insightful

    how about a "fuck the tsa" lead paint t-shirt? Maybe some leather-studded chastity underwear and crotchless chaps, too.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:fuck the tsa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of that is not needed. IF I were to fly this holiday season, I would be going commando in sweatpants.

    2. Re:fuck the tsa by operagost · · Score: 1

      lead paint t-shirt

      I'm pretty sure China is already shipping these.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:fuck the tsa by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that would earn you a very thorough body cavity search. One problem with giving security agents of any kind too much power is that many of them really enjoy abusing it when you piss them off. Besides, it's not like any of the TSA employees you would encounter at the airport made any of these decisions or have the power to change them. I actually pity the guys who have to watch the scanners and do the body searches. I wouldn't want to have to do it.

    4. Re:fuck the tsa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Besides, it's not like any of the TSA employees you would encounter at the airport made any of these decisions or have the power to change them.

      Sure they do.

      They could quit.

      But the don't.

      So - for every child who is abused because he grows up in a world in which his "private parts may not be touched by anyone unless they're a stranger wearing a uniform and then it's OK" - they're morally culpable.

      I actually pity the guys who have to watch the scanners and do the body searches. I wouldn't want to have to do it.

      So do I. So when I opt out on Wednesday, I'm going to suggest that they quit. Not today, not tomorrow, maybe not even next week.

      "Sir, this is demeaning to both of us. I can't stop it, but you can. The next time your boss tells you to fondle children, you say NO. I know you're just following policy, but as I'm sure you're aware, policies change. If you don't stop this here and now, you'll be doing full digital rectal exams by this time next year. First one of you that quits and goes public with his reasons becomes a national hero. Show us what it means to be an American. Walk away from this, and find work with an honest security company that actually keeps people safe rather than just fondles people's balls all day long."

    5. Re:fuck the tsa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 insightful.

      Yeah, they claim they’re just doing their jobs. Damn it, I will Godwin this if they’re going to use that argument. Generating the illusion of security does not, by any stretch of the imagination, entitle you to feel some kid’s genitals.

      Every time I hear somebody (TSA or relative of TSA) say maybe the job sucks but they have to do it, I just want to scream. Or at least plead with them rationally: Fine, if you are able to do the pat-downs to adults and still sleep at night, go ahead and do the shitty job. But if the job tells you to grab this kid’s crotch, say no. That should be the end of the line for just about any person with any decency left.

      Just how far exactly do you expect to get to use that excuse – “I’m just doing my job” – and be exempt from personal culpability for your actions? I will cut you some slack. But not this much slack. There is always a line that should not be crossed. If the line isn’t to this side of performing underwear checks on kids (and for what, exactly? do we really think this adds any tangible amount of security?), where is it?

  22. 4th amendment point by yossie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    4th amendment protects you against unreasonable search. Seems like it would apply at the airport. TSA claims that you are contractually obligated to put up with search when you enter the secure area and that your air travel ticket states this and as such is a contract. But, you aren't able to sign away your constitutional rights implying, at least, that this component of the air travel contract is illegal. How does this all square up?

    1. Re:4th amendment point by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      What makes you think a TSA Gate Rape is an "unreasonable" search?

      Note: if you're not citing statute or Federal Court case law, and you don't happen to be a Federal Court Justice, then your opinion doesn't really matter, does it?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:4th amendment point by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Two-thirds of Americans think this search is "reasonable", as do apparently all elected officials and judges. Also, you are absolutely able to sign away your constitutional rights, that happens all the time, for instance every time a criminal waives his right to a speedy trial, or testifies at his own trial, or speaks to the police without a lawyer present. It also happens when you consent to a police search (they don't need consent for any reasonable or warranted search), and it definitely explicitly happens when you go to airports and volunteer to go through security.

    3. Re:4th amendment point by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      It's really quite simple. The argument always goes something along the lines of it all being "voluntary." You are not required to fly, you are volunteering to fly and by doing so you are submitting to what ever rules and regulations follow along with that. You haven't set aside nor lost your 4th amendment rights, you volunteered for the process unlike a police action wherein they are doing it against your will.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:4th amendment point by Grapplebeam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't have to be a judge to know when something is unreasonable. Waterboarding is unreasonable, because it's torture. Bailouts without prison sentences to CEOs that instantly go spend half the bailout on their workers that fucked up in the first place? Unreasonable too. It's common sense, and you don't need a commitee to tell you that. If we waited for judges to enact civil rights, Obama wouldn't even have been able to become president, much less win. It's generally the people themselves that dictate morality for the civil servants that actually have a sense of morality. Generally, the idea is the congress is supposed to represent the people, not their interest groups that fund their campaigns. And generally, none of this happens because they're all bastards and businessmen who don't care in the slightest.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    5. Re:4th amendment point by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" -- Declaration of Independence.

      The fundamental purpose of government is to protect your rights. And yet the government now says you must give up your rights to fly. Don't like it? Just take the train. Until they require rapescan and molesting for that, too (subways and trains have been terrorist targets in other countries). But you can still drive, at least until they remember car bombs. But really, you need to give up your rights so the government can protect your rights.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:4th amendment point by stubob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Supreme Court. http://openjurist.org/676/f2d/379 676 F. 2d 379 - United States v. Ek

      We hold that the stricter standard required for a body cavity search also applies to an X-ray search. An X-ray search, although perhaps not so humiliating as a strip search, nevertheless is more intrusive since the search is potentially harmful to the health of the suspect. It goes beyond the passive inspection of body surfaces. We think that the use of such medical procedures should be restricted to situations where there is a clear indication that the suspect is concealing contraband within his body.

      All of which apply to border searches and not routine air travel. There's probably very little legal standing for these searches apart from the "license with the airlines" argument.

      --
      Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
    7. Re:4th amendment point by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And when these show up at a courthouse, and you have to walk through them to comply with your Jury Summons? The "voluntary" argument is a crock of shit, even for airports.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:4th amendment point by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      How does this all square up?

      As with all controversial legal issues - with the lawyers laughing all the way to the bank.

    9. Re:4th amendment point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the 4th amendment means you have the right to say "no" when a government official asks to search your person or property unless that officuial has a warrent granted by the judicial branch of an aplicible jurisdiction. if you say "yes" than a warrent is no longer required as you've given permission thus waiving your 4th ammendment right in this context (you can waive any right you posess in specific instances).

      What the airlines do is refuse service to anyone who refuses to waive their 4th ammendment rights regarding any persons and/or property they intend to bring into the secure area of the airport. This is merely an exercise of their right to refuse service to anyone they choose.

      The real question is whether or not the airline's right to refuse service is higher than a citizen's right to privacy. An example of a similar rights conflict would be the equal opertunity housing act, which basicly says that the right to housing turmps a housing provider's right to deny service in any case where they can be shown to be violating the equal protection clause in (i think) the 14th ammendmet and later expansions of such. In short it's unlawful to deny housing based on criterian such as race and gender.

      The problem with trying to overturn the airline's right to deny service to those who refuse to submit to a search is that most citizens believe that some level of search in reasonable, but differ on the extent to which a search is reasonable. As such it's unlikely that any court will rule that an airline can't require a search, and without specific new legislation the courts can't really say: "you can only require the following types of searches".

    10. Re:4th amendment point by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Individual rights are routinely restricted in cases where the State has a significant interest in preventing injury, damage, loss of life, and disruption of services. Security at a courthouse is necessary for the continuity of government service, and is not staffed by the TSA. Most courthouses are (I think) protected by special divisions of local Sheriff's Departments. Equating courthouse security with TSA is like equating them with mall security guards. Similar equipment, totally different people.

    11. Re:4th amendment point by sycorob · · Score: 1

      When your livelihood requires that you fly, it's kind of bogus to claim that you are flying voluntarily. On that same argument, you are not "required" to work in a mine, so we really shouldn't force safety standards on mine operators. They can just go work somewhere else, right? Most of us believe that safety standards are a Good Thing overall, although I know some people disagree. Those people generally have not been forced by circumstance to work jobs that really need OSHA standards, so I don't have a lot of patience for that.

      The concept that just because you do something of your own volition, you sign away all of your rights, is ridiculous. It's not unreasonable to demand that the TSA only take those steps that are demonstrably effective, and don't cross the line of being gross violations of our rights. It's not unreasonable to expect them to do their jobs better, and not resort to security theater.

      When the TSA figures out how to scan ALL of the luggage, not just some of it, without valuables "disappearing", when they take some lessons from countries that have been dealing with actual threats for years, when they are consistent from airport to airport in the SAME COUNTRY, get back to me. Until then, stop poking screaming 6 year olds, stop lying about what your scanners can and cannot do ... just stop already.

    12. Re:4th amendment point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a stark difference between voluntarily waving ones rights and being forced to. Where again are you given a choice to not wave your rights when you fly? Secondly this is a moot point, the Bill of Rights protects us against unreasonable search and seizures without a warrant. They are so far over the line, at which point what would they have to do for it to become unreasonable in your mind?

      Once someone sticks something inside them and then the TSA starts having having everyone submit to a cavity search? Would that be unreasonable?

      A Virtual Strip search and handling of people's private parts is a good line to draw in the sand. And if you think this will only be at airports then you haven't been paying attention. Not too far in the future expect this type of treatment to get on a bus, train, enter a mall, sporting event, concert or just about any place you wish to go. Its only a matter of time.

    13. Re:4th amendment point by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where did I mention the TSA? Airport-style security violates the 4th amendment, and happens in government buildings where your entrance is not voluntary. The argument that airline travel is "voluntary" is just a feeble argument to prop up fascist practices. I really don't care what argument you come up with, searching ordinary citizens at checkpoints does not belong in the United States. If the conclusion of your argument is "checkpoints are acceptable", your argument is flawed on that basis.

      There's nothing in the 4th amendment that says "unless we're scared".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:4th amendment point by Kenja · · Score: 1

      4th amendment does not give you the right to fly on a comercial airline.

      Its much like searching back packs at the ball game. You have no guarantied rights to be there, so they can make one of the conditions of your attendance being a search.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    15. Re:4th amendment point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my mind? You are asking for my opinion? In my mind airport security was unreasonable and unconstitutional BEFORE 9/11. In my mind, what has happened since then is nothing short of a travesty for freedom. And yet, I am not the king, this is a democracy, and my opinion isn't the only one which is important. I have to contend with three hundred million other opinions, of which apparently two hundred million are contrary to mine -- and yours.

    16. Re:4th amendment point by Froggels · · Score: 0

      The US Constitution so so full of weasel phrases such as "common defence", "general Welfare" and "probable cause" that is has been reinterpreted by our government to mean absolutely anything it wants it to. The Bible and Koran have been abused in much the same way for centuries. The Constitution is no longer used to check government power but rather as a weapon against the citizenry it was originally intended to protect. The real problem isn't the implementation of these new scanners nor the alternative extremely invasive pet downs, but rather that things have gotten to this point that they have and are unlikely to improve any time soon.

    17. Re:4th amendment point by HiThere · · Score: 1

      And if any airline chooses to allow you to fly anyway, I'm sure the government would continue to subsidize them.

      Sorry, the airlines are taking sufficient government subsidies that they are de facto arms of the government. If a court disagrees with me, then they court is wrong. If a lawyer disagrees with me, then the lawyer is wrong. When you take federal money you become legally bound by the strictures of the constitution. (I know that in fact this is not enforced, but it should be, and it's the way the laws and the constitution were written.)

      Of course, the original constitution didn't envision the widely embracing current government, but that doesn't change what was written. If you don't like it, you should amend it rather than just flout it.

      OTOH, if you think about it, having everyone in the country bound by the constitution wouldn't be that bad. The constitution is a pretty good document, that has stood the test of time quite well. It's the interpretations and laws added on that are the problem.

      P.S.: Do note that this argument makes anyone who eats food that has been either trucked over an interstate highway or carried by a federally subsidized airline bound by the constitution. What's wrong with that? I think much more highly of the constitution than I do of those laws that wriggle their way through congress. It's not sufficient, but, OTOH, it doesn't contain many mistakes or much corruption. (The interpretations of the constitution, however, are a different matter.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:4th amendment point by Badbone · · Score: 1

      4th amendment protects you against unreasonable search. How does this all square up?

      Because you always have the option of waive your rights. They can't force you to walk through a scanner, but you can do so willingly. No one is taking away anyone's rights. But people sure do give them away.

      --
      It can be go tiem now plees?
    19. Re:4th amendment point by rdwulfe · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, you support the police state, and don't mind having your rights trampled.

      We have a right, as a supposedly free society, to travel and do what we please as long as it does not harm others. Or we used to. This is America, the 'Land of the Free'. This is the place that was supposed to do away with the despotism, with the forced torture of innocence, and all that.

      Guess what? You're one of the people who seem to be in support of all that is going wrong in this country, the decline of the personal and societal freedom that has been happening for decades. Why? What does it get you? You're not any safer than you were pre-2001. Nothing's changed to make things better. We're not less likely to have terrorist attacks.

      However, we're MUCH less likely to go about our lives without being molested or in some way violated by some quasi-state official. Why? Because it suits some greedy politicians and empowers government more. Welcome to the future of checkpoints that keep us from travelling easily, that make our lives more expensive, and return VERY LITTLE to nothing to us. When its made illegal to go from state to state without crossing through border checks, when you have to present your papers to travel, remember these times, my friend, and remember how you supported them.

    20. Re:4th amendment point by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      You bring up an interesting point. From what I understand, if someone walks into an airport, drops their bag on the conveyor, and then refuses the search, they are then liable for penalties. In other words, it's a one way trip. You can't back out at the last minute with no penalty. This is NOT a voluntary procedure beyond a certain point.

      Just Google the following (sorry, today is a no copy/paste day again on slashdot..really wish they would fix that): body scan refuse legal penalty

    21. Re:4th amendment point by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      At a ball game, the same company that organizes the event also pays the security guards. They can choose to their own terms and conditions for attending the event. Also, a customer can choose either not to visit the game or visit another.

      At an airport, even though your money goes to the airline and/or airport authority, the security is provided by your own tax dollars, and neither the airline nor the customer can choose some other method or provider. Exactly because you don't have a right to fly, the government should not interfere so strongly.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    22. Re:4th amendment point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a three-year-old, not a six-year-old.

    23. Re:4th amendment point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point out where flying a comercial airline is a right. Go on. We'll wait.

    24. Re:4th amendment point by fejikso · · Score: 1

      4th amendment protects you against unreasonable search. Seems like it would apply at the airport. TSA claims that you are contractually obligated to put up with search when you enter the secure area and that your air travel ticket states this and as such is a contract. But, you aren't able to sign away your constitutional rights implying, at least, that this component of the air travel contract is illegal. How does this all square up?

      "Unreasonable" is such a sharp, unambiguous word.

    25. Re:4th amendment point by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that it likely doesn't, considering the way the officials acted in this instance:
      http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

      Awesome read btw.

    26. Re:4th amendment point by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Point out where walking from one place to another is a right and I'll concede your point.

    27. Re:4th amendment point by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you are talking about a country wherein there exists an already defined legal frameworks from which one must operate. In this realm of reality, it is necessary to find a path through the already established law to enact or modify policy. It's a rather bit like trying to write software to work with legacy APIs designed by short-sighted and probably insane engineers. To make matters worse, sometimes there's one node on which you must act, other times there's more than 50. Sometimes the APIs are similar, though they're never completely the same. Sometimes within each node of this set of 50+ nodes are sub-nodes with their own special APIs that resemble one another but are not quite the same. Sometimes even these are subdivided. The solutions are seldom straight forward, seldom founded in common sense, and seldom what you really wanted in the first place.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    28. Re:4th amendment point by rdwulfe · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously think this, or are you just trolling for a reaction on the internet? Do you truly believe the government must GRANT you the right to move around freely, for you to own it?

      Would you much prefer to have to ask a government official for permission to move from one state to the next? Would you like to present your papers, prove your "NEED" to be there? Because that's where we're moving. And now they want to place these scanning systems in train and metro stations.

      Is this so hard to understand that our rights, YES, rights, have been eroded to this degree? That because of simplistic views such as the one you present right there, we're wildly throwing away what was beautiful and wonderful in this country, and what at one time made it unique?

      It's simply very sad how poorly educated we are about what a "right" is these days.

  23. What I don't understand is... by djh2400 · · Score: 0

    Why can't a person just fold their hands in front of them while going through the machine, thereby covering up those sensitive parts? Last I checked, the hands pretty much hang down at the same height...

    1. Re:What I don't understand is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were allowed to hide things with their hands, they might be able to hide things with their hands.

      captcha: unarmed

  24. Just for a laugh... by Elegor · · Score: 3, Funny

    A woman could use an 'underwear insert' in the shape of a humongous cock and balls. Question is, would that mean she is more or less likely to get groped? And would she be groped by a male agent or a female one?

    1. Re:Just for a laugh... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      would she be groped by a male agent or a female one?

      They would tag-team, with a female agent on top and a male one on the bottom. Then they would switch.
      However, if you made it a "small" insert, instead of "humongous", they would probably just let her go through.

    2. Re:Just for a laugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, what about transvestites/transgenders pre-op and post-op?
      If I'm gay, does that mean that I get groped^H^H^H^H^H^Hsearched by a woman?

  25. Am I the only one? by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 0

    Am I the only person in the world that has no problem with this?

    personally, the idea of getting into a flying metal bullet and being propelled through the air at hundreds of kilometers per hour with a hundred+ other people that COULD have an implement to kill anybody on board or prevent the aircraft from being able to land without anybody even bothering to check if the passengers have said implements on them: just sounds like a bad idea.

    If you have issues with what your junk looks like, I feel terribly sorry for you. give your parents a smack sometime (unless they are no longer around.. then maybe just give yourself a smack so as not to be an asshat!) and ask them why they decided to raise you to be afraid of who and what you are.
    we're all human. If somebody criticizes your bits, grow a pair and get the fuck over it.

    1. Re:Am I the only one? by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't care about your 4th Amendment Rights does not mean they are important. When will you start to care? When you start to get stopped on the street for no reason and have to submit to a finger in the butt cavity search?

    2. Re:Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is EXACTLY when I'll care: When that starts happening to people in general. Against their will, and without warning.
      As others have pointed out, TSA scans and searches are a condition of entry to a flight. If you don't fly, you don't have to submit to them.
      CAPTCHA: sleuth. Indeed. If you need a sleuth with a magnifying glass to find it, you might have something to hide after all.

    3. Re:Am I the only one? by lgw · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How about you (a) stop being such a coward, and (b) start caring about the rights that so many people who weren't cowards died to defend? The threat of dieing in an airplane due to hostile action is trivial. Driving instead of flying is significanly riskier. If you don't have the courage to face even such a minimal threat, what good are you?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Am I the only one? by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      you have more of a chance of getting skin cancer from the sun, driving your car to work, getting heart disease (especially if you're an american), getting lung cancer, even getting lupus and in all of these things which has a greater risk of dying we don't ask the gov't for protection nor is your chance of getting irradiated and or groped/sexually molested a part of the risks involved. Take your unreasonable fears and live in a cave deep underground to protect you from the danger called life.

    5. Re:Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't have an issue with getting into a driving metal bullet and being propelled on the ground at a hundred or so kilometers per hours with a hundred+ other people on the road that DO have an implement that could kill anybody around them?

      All things in life have risk and this process does nothing to minimize that risk. So yes, you should have a problem with it.

    6. Re:Am I the only one? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      yes, and when they killed the jews, you didn't care because you weren't jewish.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    7. Re:Am I the only one? by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      give your parents a smack sometime (unless they are no longer around.. then maybe just give yourself a smack so as not to be an asshat!) and ask them why they decided to raise you to be afraid of everyone else.

      FTFY.

      I have no problems defending myself on land, air, or sea. I would rather take the risk of being blown up by a bomb while living in a free country then having no risks whatsoever while living in ... whatever this form of government is. I mean, I thought this was America. I've been told there once was a time where you handed someone cash and got on an airplane. Half the people flying probably carried pocket knives or water or some other item that is restricted these days.

      the idea of getting into a flying metal bullet and being propelled through the air at hundreds of kilometers per hour with a hundred+ other people

      I find it amusing that a hundred years ago, the overwhelming majority of people would have agreed THIS was the "bad idea."

    8. Re:Am I the only one? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Oh so it's only a tiny unnecessary risk caused by unwarranted intrusion. I guess I'll line up for it twice, then.

  26. Tin foil underwear! by sverdlichenko · · Score: 1

    World coming to its end!

  27. Aluminum foil by Myopic · · Score: 1

    I haven't flown in many months, but I was thinking about next time I go through airport security I could use packing tape to attach strips of aluminum foil to my chest spelling out FUCK YOU. This would be clearly visible in the X-ray, but would not be visible otherwise, and an agent could not even feel it during a pat down. It furthermore would not provide any security threat, and could not possibly conceal any weapon. It would be a pure speech opportunity. How could or would TSA respond to such a thing?

    1. Re:Aluminum foil by FSWKU · · Score: 1

      How could or would TSA respond to such a thing?

      With a full cavity-search, probably.

      --
      "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    2. Re:Aluminum foil by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Don't bother with that plan, you're only making extra work for people who are not worth it. Eat a lot of chili, instead, and opt for the molest... Er, pat-down. When they're busy touching places they shouldn't go near anyway, fart away. Release your inner Black Smoke. Fill their nostrils with noxious organic fumes. Seriously, if you want to do anything about this, EVERYBODY should opt for the manual search, make it as unpleasant an experience as possible for the TSA thugs, then write letters accusing them of "inappropriate behavior" and "unprofessional conduit". Women's complaints are particularly effective. Ruin their lives, it's only fair.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    3. Re:Aluminum foil by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Sadly, you're liable to be arrested for assault if you fart while a TSA goon has his hand down your pants, fondling your ass. John Pistole says that shouldn't happen, yet it does and nobody gets fired or arrested.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  28. it was by KevMar · · Score: 1

    it was only a matter of time.

    --
    Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
    1. Re:it was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally there is a good excuse for rusted pants.

  29. The only real solution to by-pass... by grumpyman · · Score: 1

    The only real solution to by-pass the uncomfortable pad down and see thru scanner is castration.

  30. Irrelevant by wwphx · · Score: 1

    There has not been enough study of ionizing radiation risks to form a clear consensus. I have a genetic immune disorder and will not subject myself to this, nor will I subject myself to being molested by a government agent.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    1. Re:Irrelevant by phayes · · Score: 1

      The wierd thing is that all the people that are screaming "I REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO BACKSCATTER BECAUSE IT USES X-RAYS & X-RAYS ARE DANGEROUS" that gives less than a tenth of the exposition a typical Xray does is that they all ignore the fact that flying at high altitude for 7 hours already gives you a dose equivalent to a typical X-ray. OK, so frequent fliers have a credible reason to avoid the scanners, but not the infrequent fliers that seem to be doing most of the screaming.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  31. What I would like to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I would like is some sort of marker or tape that would allow me to spell out "F*CK YOU" on my ass so the TSA goon running the scanner knows just what I think of him and the secret police organization he works for.

    One advantage to doing this is that such an image would no doubt be widely distributed around the internet thereby proving that scanner images can be saved and redistributed.

    1. Re:What I would like to see by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      If the images can't be saved, they can't be used as evidence.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  32. seems like a good idea.. by milkmage · · Score: 1

    if you wear it on the outside.

  33. TSA is killing people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About 1 billion passengers fly every year in the USA.

    Assume very conservatively that extra security measures are adding about 5 minutes to the time taken for each flight (it's probably a lot more owing to the extra time-safety margin generally required to ensure you get through security on time) and that's 100 million hours.

    Now given that you spend about 400000 hours awake during an 80 year life that is the equivalent of about 250 lives being wasted on this excercise every year in the USA.

    It's even worse than that if you think of all the money wasted on it that could be more efficiently spent on reducing life lost in other areas of genuine need (eg health care for the poor).

  34. In TSA world, suspicious != terrorist, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, if you're just wearing underwear made of weird metals, there's no chance whatsoever they'd escort you to whichever emphatically-not-Gitmo site in Eastern Elbonia that is in operation this week.

  35. Spell it out by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    How about cutting some metal foil into letters, glue them onto your undies, and spell out a message for the TSA?
    You know, tell them what to do with themselves?

  36. Re:Suspicious by atisss · · Score: 3, Funny

    Haha, why not just read playboy before entering scanner.. that way picture should be clear and solid.

  37. FUGLY by wickerprints · · Score: 1

    As in, "Fig Leaf UGLY." Has anyone actually bothered to look at the image in the article? Seriously? A fig-leaf design for men and "clasped hands" for women? WTF?

    Dude. I'd sooner let the agent grope me than be caught wearing something like that. Especially if he's cute. (I kid, I kid)

    I think the solution is simple--force everyone to wear a standard skintight full-body lycra uniform prior to entering the security area, and have designated changing areas once past security. Sure, the TSA agents would eventually go blind from the abject horror that is American obesity, but hey, that's their problem, not ours.

  38. "Shy Traveler" by unity100 · · Score: 1

    That sounds like "Smooth Operator". A good sade song could be made out of this. Oooh shhhy traavellleeerrrrr ... Shhhhhy traavelleeeerrr * Pat me down with your genitaliaaa * Unnderweaaring att thee aiiir poort *

  39. damn you sir, damn you and your humor by unity100 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    someone pls mod parent up

  40. go naked? - strip? by bark · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was wondering if it is acceptable to the TSA for me to request a private room, and strip naked to let them do a visual only examination to prove that I'm not carrying anything dangerous. They can look as closely as they want, as long as they don't touch me.

    I have no concerns about privacy, but I do have a problem with xrays and a person feeling me up.

    But I have no problems about getting naked. Is that an acceptable for the TSA? I will try it next time I go through an airport.

    1. Re:go naked? - strip? by bhalter80 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've been wondering what would happen if someone appeared to be visibly enjoying the pat down. Maybe instead of a boycott we should all have a mass fake orgasm day

    2. Re:go naked? - strip? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Maybe going through the line dressed in just a tight bathing suit would make it all quicker? Or just a kilt that you can easily lift?

    3. Re:go naked? - strip? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not acceptable. A couple days, ago, a man in San Diego stripped down to tight bike shorts. The TSA told him to put his pants on so they could molest him. He was arrested for not following instructions and making a recording of the incident.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:go naked? - strip? by Digana · · Score: 1

      I actually offered just that while going through airport security recently. I got selected on both directions of my trip. I opted out twice. I offered both times to strip instead of being probed. The first pat down actually wasn't that bad, no touching of my genitals. The second one touched them very briefly.

      I wore a long skirt with nothing underneath, but they didn't seem to take any note of that.

      I also wasn't brave enough to make too much of a fuss, because as a foreign national, I thought I couldn't afford dealing with the problems if they had happened (e.g. being stranded in a foreign airport in a foreign country). I did tell them I was opting out due to 4th amendment issues, because they asked me why I was opting out, and were writing it down.

  41. I'm still pissed by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

    That Chertoff's company, Rapiscan Systems (no that's seriously the name, what the fuck, right?) is one of the two producers of this bullshit. The guy couldn't run national security at all and we're apparently STILL LETTING HIM DO IT. Protip: If given the chance, at least ONE American on board a flight will attempt to stop any possible terrorist. That bullshit that Bush yammered on about, "American Exceptionalism" (I forget if he called it that or if that's what his detractors called it) doesn't come from America itself, because our systems currently in place are pretty crappy. It does have an inkling of truth in it, though, in the form of the people. The same people whose rights are being trampled by this garbage. This will accomplish nothing, except set the precedence so they can do worse things. And to not only head off, but invoke Godwin's Law, the Nazis never could've even hoped for such willing corruption. We even tell people about torture, which they were unwilling to do. And what about what they're not telling us? I'm not saying the past is better. I'm just saying our current system is bad.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree.
  42. He is obviously a terrorist. by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

    Honestly, coating your underpants in thermite is going a bit far...

    --
    Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
  43. Better use for this technology... by cranberryhiker · · Score: 1
    ...would be Body Markers, to write things directly above genitalia, or on buttocks. Such as, "Bite Here!"

    :-)

    ...Just a thought.

  44. Planes that dont crash with explosives.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're doing it wrong ....

    The solution here is to better engineer planes so they dont sustain critical damage when a small explosive is applied. In other words, a terrorist may sucessfully kill the 20 people in his immediate vicinity, but he cant cause the plane to crash.

    I dont know what technology could help here.. maybe blowout panels... but terrorists like planes because with a relatively small explosive you can kill everyone .. to them, it's impressive to blow up a plane because it makes the news... if we take away their ability to cause the plane to crash, they'll get bored with this line of attack relatively quickly because the risk is not worth the now small reward....

  45. I'm not concerned about them seeing my bits by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    But could the titanium be arranged in some kind of microwave-scale freznel ring design that makes the overall package seem more impressive ? After you pass through the machine the TSA goons all touch their earpieces as they listen to the comments of the backroom screeners, it would be great to seem them keep a straight face if a guy with (apparently) a 3' dick went through. They'd have to pull me aside and ask if I planned to use it as a weapon.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  46. Dave Barry ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ...has discovered the problems inherent in this approach.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  47. undies not enough by meerling · · Score: 1

    I'd like jeans and shirt, and as long as we're at it, a long coat (duster) and a hat with this stuff. It'll drive them nuts.

    What's wrong? Everyone knows that these flights expose you to increased levels of radiation, and my doctor says I need to avoid that, so I'm wearing environment appropriate clothing. I'm sorry your xray operator can't get his jollies off, but it doesn't say he's allowed to see anything. Besides that, you don't want me turning into the thing or human torch do you? (Mister Fantastic would be too much fun, and Invisible Woman would require a gender change as well.) Sorry, couldn't resist the comic book based radiation crack. :)

  48. Spinal Tap prank by AhabTheArab · · Score: 1

    That (and this whole story) reminds me of this lovely bit from Spinal Tap.

  49. Mormons? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    And what about the initiated Mormons with their lead-lined underwear?

                    mark

  50. New meaning to the phrase "Commando Raid" by 517714 · · Score: 1

    Why not just stuff your tinfoil hat in your pants?

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
  51. A geek's best friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't a body augmentation prosthetic make more sense? Would you rather be seen as a Unic or a potential John Holmes?

  52. Re:Suspicious by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Haha, why not just read playboy before entering scanner.. that way picture should be clear and solid.

    For added effect, put a metal ruler in your pants, for handy scale reference.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  53. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I'm supposed to wrap these around my genitals in order to hide...my genitals?

  54. Tungsten underwear by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Comfy!

    1. Re:Tungsten underwear by treeves · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they'd make Oliver Sacks nostalgic and happy.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  55. Refresh my memory by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    How does one get to and from most airports?

  56. I had been wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there was a way to get something specific to show up on the scanners. I could see a market for shirts that tell the TSA just what you think of them.

  57. Bullshit! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    You want a "fisting" go ahead and wear something that the illiterate TSA drone hasn't seen before and then try to explain it to somebody with an IQ of 90!

    Unless you have to, DON'T FLY!!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  58. I can see it now by JustABlitheringIdiot · · Score: 1

    A hot woman wearing this underwear hits a scanner and

    TSA Agent: *snickers* "Ma'am I'm afraid there appears to be an anomaly with your underwear. I'm going to have to ask you to take them off."
    Woman: "Take them off?!?!"
    TSA Agent: "Yes please go right over there behind that one way see through privacy shield and oh don't mind the cameras they aren't HD capable."
    FOX News: "Local woman arrested for refusing to take off her bomb concealing underwear for the TSA. She must be a terrorist otherwise she would have cooperated like and good American. It is Un-American to keep your underwear on."

  59. What are the options for non-Americans? by SilverJets · · Score: 1

    As a non-American (I don't even live in the USA) what options are there for tourists to the US? I see a lot of arguments about this whole issue involving 4th Ammendment Rights, etc. So as a visitor to your country can I refuse the backscatter scan? Are there any rights that protect me? Some argue that air travel is voluntary well yes and no. Sure I voluntarily entered the US as a visitor but in order to leave I need to fly out...especially if I live on the other side of the world. Driving obviously isn't an option. So where do non-Americans fit into this? Should we just keep our heads down our mouths shut and submit to the gate rape?

    1. Re:What are the options for non-Americans? by fussy_radical · · Score: 1

      Well, you can choose to vacation elsewhere. I remember reading a few years ago that the American tourist industry was starting to feel the hurt from the TSA's practices. I don't think this new round of stupidity is going to help. Perhaps the travel/tourist lobby will buy some legislation for the poor citizenry.
       
        If you have to travel there for business? Make sure to ship all your electronics in advance and remember that your employer is paying you to get groped.
       
        Hope it helps!

  60. Underwear ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fully expect the TSA to ban underwear on commercial flights in the U.S. as a result of this. Can't be too careful, right?

  61. Still an invasion of 4th Amendment by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    In addition to still having the rest of your body subject to backscatter x-rays without your consent without a warrant, this method is still ineffective in doing what we claim to be doing in the first place.

    Catching terrorist attacks.

    Because even the TSA admits that 4 out of 5 attempts to get thru their security screening are totally successful.

    EPIC FAIL! ... now, back off and move to Russia if you want to touch my junk!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  62. Probably not hanged, but rather... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    200 years ago they probably would not have been hanged, but rather they'd definitely have gotten at least tarred and feathered.

    1. Re:Probably not hanged, but rather... by sjames · · Score: 1

      They probably wouldn't have lived long enough to be hanged. The very suggestion that they wanted to touch someone's crotch would have been justification enough to beat them to death on the spot.

  63. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it contours to your body, what good is it? That's like saying if you put a condom on your willy, then people won't be able to see it.

  64. Re:Suspicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and wizard hat.

  65. No, bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this is going to do is get someone pulled out of line and back-roomed.

  66. Best pat downs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to start flying a lot, now that I can get free pat-downs bonus with my flights.

    Only question, which airports should I choose for the best pat-downs out there?

    Also, do they do naked pat-downs as well? where? where?

  67. Idle curiousity by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering how these new search procedures were authorised.
    Was there an act of congress or is the TSA an uncontrolled rogue agency that can just apply these rules themselves?
    Either way conservative America is going to blame Obama for this but if he demands the TSA stop he'll be blamed for taking the side of the terrorists. From the other side of the ocean this looks like a nasty little political game with possibly a bit of graft and corruption involving RapiScan thrown in.

  68. Ya that wouldnt be suspicious at all by Twyst3d · · Score: 1

    Someone pay for and mail me one of these and I will document my experience flying across the border from Canada to the US to visit my folks for christmas. On second thought dont.

    --
    And this has been another installament of Captain Obvious! /whoosh