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."
When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.
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
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!
I don't know, the government has assured me that there is no risk of any of that stuff...
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
"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...
Living With a Nerd
The TSA kills Americans.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
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/
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?
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.
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.
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.
~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
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.
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.
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.
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.