TSA Body Scanners To Show Less Revealing Images

tgtanman writes "The Washington Post reports that the TSA will begin installing new software on millimeter wave body scanners at 41 airports that will replace the controversial body images with generic images of the body. While the change is currently limited to millimeter wave scanners, similar upgrades for backscatter scanners is being developed, according to the TSA. The ACLU has applauded the changes but continues to note other concerns with the scanners."

Comments

Successful project

[zget]

Now people can applaud them for doing the good thing and changing the controversial scanners to better ones. I don't feel so bad anymore. Good job!



wait, didn't I still lose privacy somewhere in the process?

Re:Successful project

[dgatwood]

Worse, these aren't any less invasive of your privacy. They're still, by definition, still taking the image. The computer is just throwing away some of the data. Translation: it is just software that can change at any time, even to the point of sending a complete copy of the unprocessed image data to a porn site in Russia.

Just to put on my cynic hat, the government had better hope that they rounded up all those Anonymous hackers the other day. Otherwise, I'd give it a year, tops, before somebody manages to pull off "Girls Gone Wild, Airport Security Style". Really, when you have something so utterly ripe for abuse, it's not a question of if, but when.

Re:Successful project

[Seumas]

YES.

If the only reason you weren't going through the machines as it was is because you didn't want someone keeping an archive of your naughty bits, then you were standing up for the wrong reason. Treat it as any other aspect of your privacy. Exercise it. I won't go through the machines for the same reason I don't just invite an officer into my house or give an officer a reason to snoop around my car. Rights are meaningless if you don't exercise them.

Re:Successful project

[Anonymous Coward]

DAE remember that before these scanners were first installed the TSA, in combination with the Department of Homeland Security, certified that there was software in place which blurred the naughty bits and prevented any sort of saving, printing, etc, of the images... and that it all turned out to be a COMPLETE AND INTENTIONAL LIE?

DAE ever go look at the TENS OF THOUSANDS of high quality images that have been posted on the internet by TSA agents who saved the images to a personal thumb drive since there is no security whatsoever which would prevent saving of images to a USB device? Who needs Anon? "GGW: Airport Scanner" is already a reality (at work or I'd link it)

Re:Successful project

[Captain Hook]

Would it be okay to give a good reason why my privacy is more important than the appearance of airline security?

Re:Successful project

[Travelsonic]

... give me a break - a metal detector and x-ray for bags is nothing like this.

You say this like you can't have airport security without the overt intrusions - better yet, why don't YOU tell me why we should use the invasive pat downs, scanners, and the like - instead of other alternatives that exits, and also tell me why you can't have security without such absurd over-the-top intrusions.

Re:Successful project

[Captain Hook]

First, think about whether you would still object if these machines were 100% effective. If the answer is "yes", then don't bother.

Define 100% effective?

100% effective at catching people trying to smuggle weapons aboard planes?

or

100% effective at detering people trying to smuggle weapons aboard planes?

or prehaps

100% effective at reducing the number of passengers who want to travel by plane to start with?.

The problem with this stuff is, it clearly isn't 100% effective, even if it was, there are still issues with passenger privacy and health (whether precieved or real) and the really genius bit of it all is that if it is successful the outcome from the point of view of an inpartial external viewer is exactly the same as if nothing happened at all. I have a tiger repelling stone necklace you might want to buy, I have never once been attacked by a tiger while wearing it.

Re:Successful project

[kilfarsnar]

At this point, airplane hijacking or bombing has become a crappy attack vector, and it has nothing to do with increased security, as the shoe-bomber and underwear-bomber found out. Passengers will no longer let it happen. Therefore, the scanners have little to do with airline security. Besides, my rights are always more important than my security.

Re:Successful project

[u-235-sentinel]

Would it be okay to give a good reason why my privacy is more important than the appearance of airline security?

Depends. First, think about whether you would still object if these machines were 100% effective. If the answer is "yes", then don't bother. Otherwise go ahead, but be ready to support your argument with statistics from a credible source.

I find it amusing that the TSA continually argues that the scanners are effective in detecting not only weapons such as knives and guns but their number one argument has been in detecting explosives. The latest lawsuit against the TSA basically was thrown out because the Judge said the search for explosives in the TSA's argument was more important than our right to privacy.

Amusing. Then why not use a proven tech and get dogs into the airports to check ??

Just received a letter from my representative (Jason Chaffetz) on the subject. He received a Pentagon report recently which they say dogs are the most effective way of detecting explosives.

So much for the TSA's argument. . .

Re:Successful project

[gstrickler]

It doesn't make flying any safer. The TSA fails to detect 80%-90% of the contraband every time they're tested. And only 10% of cargo is scanned, so a cargo bomb has at least a 90% chance of making it onto a plane. And that doesn't even address all the other ways something can get onto a plane (airport employees, TSA screener, etc.)

It's not just about privacy, it's invasive and ineffective, and an unconstitutional search of your person, something prohibited by the 4th Amendment. Even if you don't care about privacy, you should care about your rights, and about it's ineffectiveness, and about all the easier ways an attacker could get something onto a plane.

It's security theater, nothing more. It's completely ineffective, costly, invasive, and unconstitutional. Everyone should care about at least two of those problems.

The new image

[margeman2k3]

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/e/5/d/9/1194984539216837021man02.svg.med.png

Does it matter?

[Boogaroo]

Does it matter if it's less revealing if the radiation is just as dangerous?
Does it matter if it's ineffective now and continues to be ineffective?

I think we could better spend the money on monitoring the TSA screeners who keep stealing our stuff.

Re:Does it matter?

[zget]

I've traveled a lot in asia, including Cambodia (one of the poorest countries in the world) and China. Not once they have stolen anything from my backs. It's kind of funny that it happens in the US.

Re:Does it matter?

[ModernGeek]

I never understood how they justified this. X-Rays are considered high risk. They keep quoting radiation dosages, but it doesn't seem to factor the fact that this is ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation that damages DNA. Damaged DNA that causes cancer cells. Why is this allowed?

Re:Does it matter?

[symbolset]

This was a compassionate move, to lessen the burden of watching as vast hordes of portly American travellers waddle naked through their magic gate.

Re:Does it matter?

[blindseer]

I agree. These scanners will find nothing that a metal detector and those bomb sniffers don't already find. Sure, I suppose someone might be able to sneak one of those ceramic or high density plastic blades on board the plane that these back scatter scanners might find but that problem has already been addressed. Tactics like a bolted door to the pilots and a cabin filled with people (crew and passengers) that know that someone that wields such a weapon can kill everyone on board. These people will react with lethal force using their own fists, feet, and teeth if they must to take that person down.

Bomb sniffers and metal detectors are enough on the ground. Bolted doors and a "to the death" attitude in the air can handle what gets through the detectors. Pat downs should be reserved only for people that are placed under arrest for failure to comply with the safety rules. Anyone that has been patted down is automatically not going to fly, with rare exceptions.

Those bomb sniffers aren't even that great since they are often too sensitive and will pick up a variety of cosmetics, medicines, and just stuff people pick up from the environment and flag it as explosive. Common sense needs to prevail when screening for explosives. The sniffers are great in picking up potentially explosive compounds but really bad at finding an actual bomb. Turning people away only because the sniffer picked up something is stupid because the false positive rate is so high, and if the screeners truly felt the person did have a bomb then that person should not be allowed to walk free, that person needs to be arrested, investigated, and charged with attempted murder or something.

When it comes to the TSA screeners stealing there are two separate issues here. One is the unconstitutional search by an agent of the federal government without warrant or probable cause. No one can tell me that attempting to take a flight in an airplane is probable cause to a government search for explosives or weapons. Let the airline and/or airport staff take over control of the security. I recall that history shows that they are more effective at securing the airport anyway. Might have something to do with the fact that it is their own planes that are being protected, no airline wants to lose an airplane or the passengers within it.

The second issue with items disappearing in the handling of luggage is that the TSA is allowed to search bags in private where no one can see them steal stuff. There is also the plausible deniability on both the part of the TSA and the airline, both groups can point fingers at the other on who stole what. If it is only the airline that handles the luggage then they are solely responsible for any loss along the way. No luggage should be opened without the owner present, excepting some very rare instances. The policy of routinely cutting locks needs to go.

I have flown only once since this TSA nonsense began and that is only because I had a deal on some tickets. After the crap I went through to get on a plane I'm not sure I'd fly if the ticket was free.

Re:Does it matter?

[blindseer]

These scanners come in two varieties, one uses millimeter waves and the other uses x-rays. X-rays will pass through clothing, and people, but the detectors are placed and tuned in a way that only the X-rays that bounce off skin and solid objects is detected.

I am guessing the X-ray machines are cheaper which is why they are more popular.

Re:Does it matter?

[Solandri]

These x-ray scanners give you a much smaller ionizing radiation dose than you'll get from the flight itself. When you're flying at altitude, there's less air to absorb ionizing cosmic radiation, so you end up encountering and absorbing more of it. Airline crews on certain routes actually get a higher annual dose of radiation than nuclear plant workers.

While I agree that the scanners are an abomination, the radiation from them is (assuming the machine is working properly) a tiny fraction of the increased radiation exposure you subject yourself to when you fly. If you're that paranoid about radiation, don't fly, drive.

Re:Does it matter?

[mspohr]

It may be a very small amount of radiation or they may be calculating it wrong or they may be lying.

In any case, it is radiation and can cause cancer. There is no safe amount of radiation. Any amount of radiation can cause cancer. The more radiation, the greater your chance of cancer. I choose not to expose myself to this extra radiation.

Re:Does it matter?

[cowboy76Spain]

After being in Nepal, that's what I think:

• Smaller airports --> bigger accountability. In some cases the bags were always in public sight while they were checked / sent to the plane.
• Even when the baggage was not in sight, the traffic was so little that I imagine that there could be no more than two - three people looking baggage. It makes workers a lot harder to say "But I did not see nothing" if someone complains.
• I do not know if it was because we were obviously foreigners, but I did not feel that the checks were very thorough. It looked like they were looking more for smuggled goods than for bombs, which makes it easier to check (you can hide a bomb almost anywhere, if you are smuggling goods probably you'll have to get your luggage full of it in order to make a profit).
• Also, as Opportunist says, probably having a stable work in an office in an airport is a way better prospect than most of the population there has, while here it is just a minimal wage work.
• And finally, low traffic allowed for some measures that would not be practical in other airports. When leaving Katmandu airport a security officer checked that the code in our bags matched the label we had in our tickets. Think how much would it cost doing the same in, say, Heathrow or JFK.

Re:Does it matter?

[LordLimecat]

In any case, it is radiation and can cause cancer.

No, its microwave radiation (not even that!), and noone has ever shown a conclusive or even likely link to show that it causes cancer. From the wiki article on it...

The terahertz region is between the radio frequency region and the optical region generally associated with lasers....safety limits are based on extrapolation.... It is expected that effects on tissues are thermal in nature and, therefore, predictable by conventional thermal models.

In otherwords, there really isnt any credible "it causes cancer" hypothesis out there based on where it lies on the electromagnetic spectrum.

Please stop spouting nonsense, every time one of these TSA Millimeter wave discussions comes up someone inevitably spouts nonsense about cancer.

Re:Does it matter?

[blueg3]

X-ray backscatter has a better resolution and sensitivity to density differences, but almost no capacity to see past higher-density objects, like millimeter-wave does.

Incidentally, "tuned" in this case is probably that X-ray backscatter uses lower-energy (higher-wavelength) X-rays than typical transmission X-ray applications.

Doesn't address the issues.

[gstrickler]

While it's slightly less of an invasion, it doesn't change the invasive nature of these scans, nor does it address the possible health concerns. It's still an invasive search of your person without probable cause, and they're still ineffective at detecting even known types of dangerous items. Ineffective, invasive, (violating the conditions for a legal administrative airport security search) and without probable cause, that means they're still prohibited by the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

USA USA USA

[cosm]

Get fucking rid of them. And the TSA. But now that those assholes unionized, they'll never go away I'm sure. Land of the slave, home of the serf.

Wait, what?

[Baloroth]

If it was possible to do this in software to begin with, and they knew the images were "controversial" to begin with, why the hell didn't they just do this from the very beginning? My understanding of the system was that it was the fact that the images revealed everything, so to speak, that they were effective. So either they need to be revealing (which they clearly don't), or they've just been lying the whole time.

Which brings me to my second question. Who is being paid to develop this software? Is this literally a case where they could have done something in the beginning, but didn't so that they could charge extra later, and then look like good guys because they are "protecting our rights"? Or am I missing something here? Because it looks very much to me like this move shows that they were pressing as hard as they could to see how far they could go "to stop terrorists", then, when people object, stepping back the tiniest inch (and BTW, anyone who doesn't go through these still has to be frisked) and trying to look like good guys.

Seriously, this absolutely reeks of deception and probably downright lying. Of course, now people will back off and the TSA can continue with their security theater. The ACLU doesn't need to applaud this decision: they need to launch a class action lawsuit and corruption investigation to shut down the TSA.

Re:Wait, what?

[evil_aaronm]

I forget the term for this, but I think it's along the lines of, "They set the bar at this height, we resist a bit, and they lower the bar a little, and we relent, now that the bar is lower, but we've still lost because the bar exists in the first place."

Re:Wait, what?

[bill_mcgonigle]

If it was possible to do this in software to begin with, and they knew the images were "controversial" to begin with, why the hell didn't they just do this from the very beginning?

Because it's all about behavioral conditioning, not safety.

Meh.

[Xacid]

It's still the SAME thing. They're still regularly blasting folks with unnecessary radiation. Still misappropriating priorities and funds.

Let's be real - how many planes are going to be coming down with knives and similar now that The Door (tm) is in place? Perhaps I'm grossly misinformed - if so, by all means educate me. But I'd rather see more investments being made in explosive detection.

Heck, there was a story recently about the TSA busting a guy with C4 by using an explosive detection device.

Re:Meh.

[pipedwho]

Heck, there was a story recently about the TSA busting a guy with C4 by using an explosive detection device.

Funnily enough, that story is about the TSA congratulating itself for detecting a small amount of detonatorless explosive (1/2 ounce of C4 in a tobacco tin), in checked luggage. - ie. a non-threat to anyone on the plane.

The really sad thing is that the luggage would have been searched (and the C4 found) not because the explosive itself was detected, but because trace amounts of probably unrelated residue on the outside of the bag were detected. I suspect that 99% of 'trace' detections lead to searches that don't end up finding anything; mainly because there are too many legitimate ways that 'explosive' residue can find its way onto a bag.

Re:TSA "Cancer Coffins"

[OttoErotic]

Don't try to fool me. Everybody knows that chiropractic medicine is quack science, just like global warming or vaccinations for children. The truth is that subluxations are easily cured with a homeopathic bleach solution. And don't get me started on radiation. Just sleep under a crystal pyramid each night like a normal person and you don't have to worry about radiation. Or Thetans.

As long as Chertoff is still getting his kickbacks

[antifoidulus]

Let's be perfectly clear on this, the purpose of these body scanners was NEVER to increase security, it was a gigantic kickback to former homeland security chief Michael Chertoff who received very well documented "consulting" positions with the company that makes those scanners. They are no more secure than competing, less invasive scanners, but the manufacturers of those scanners obviously didn't bribe the right officials.

Meanwhile...

[evil_aaronm]

Freedom Groping is still an option.

http://www.copblock.org/6076/woman-charged-with-felony-after-groping-female-tsa-agent/

Re:Don't like it?

[Roachie]

Been on a bus lately? Shit, I'll take my chances with the nukeatron and getting felt up at the airport. At least I have some assurance that my blood will stay in my body by the time I reach my destination.

This isn't going to stop anytime soon

[hamburgler007]

It's sad how far down the shitter we are, namely past the point of no return. If the supreme court ruled against these invasive searches, it would stop, but scotus almost always sides with the federal government. If travelers protested by not travelling by air it would stop, but that certainly isn't going to happen. All the budget problems won't stop it, the government would sooner cut education than "defense." It's not realistic to see a genuine concerted effort by the majority of the public to stop this. Sure there are stories that infuriate the populace from time to time, but generally speaking those stories are quickly forgotten, with the occasional token legislation to treat a symptom of the disease, but not the disease itself. Say what you will about the tea party (I find most of their ideals reprehensible), but they are the only party for a long time who have motivated private citizens to become politically active. While I may not agree with the legislation they try to push through, I have a great deal of respect for them, in that they actively get involved with flaws they perceive in the government rather than grumble about standing in line to get scanned or the latest TSA faux pas.

TSA, a risk factor

[Roachie]

I heard that Al Qaeda was going to use rogue TSA agents to smuggle explosives into the secure areas of the airports.

The only way to be sure is to perform a cavity check on each and every TSA agent when they arrive for work, every day they show up.

Spread the word about this risk.

Re:TSA, a risk factor

[the_raptor]

This is why the TSA is a joke. The authorities try to paint TSA agents as if they are all highly trained FBI agents or something, but they are low skill rent-a-cops with little educational requirement.

Drug runners subvert airport personnel and police all the time (and most contraband in prisons is smuggled in by the guards). Are we expected to believe that such a tactic is too dishonourable for terrorists or something? And the best bit is that the terrorists can just pretend to be drug runners and not even have to worry about finding an agent with similar ideology.

more like

[Weezul]

http://thewashingtonfancy.com/2011/06/man-takes-viagra-wears-sweatpants-for-tsa-pat-down/

Re:more like

[Opportunist]

Hey, if it wasn't for pat-downs in airports, I wouldn't have a sex life at all. Hell, that's the whole reason I'm flying!

When I told that to the pat-down guy last time he was really pissed at me for some odd reason. Do I really look that bad?

Re:TSA "Cancer Coffins"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it - if the guy's a troll, he's certainly a very odd troll. His posts have been consistently batshit insane. His Facebook page has over 500 friends, but almost all of them appear to be chiropractors. He may have gone out and tried to friend every chiropractor he could find online, and if so that just seems a bit sad. If he's trying to get a rise of tech geeks, spine adjustments is a very obscure attack vector.

If it's an attempt to discredit chiropractors, it's a pretty brilliant Kaufmanesque move. However, I'm going to apply Occam's Razor and say that the most likely answer is that he's a total nutjob.

This isn't for the X-ray ones

[Sycraft-fu]

It is for the millimeter wave ones. Those ones are not ionizing radiation (as the wavelength indicates, it is below visible light). Remember there are two different kinds of body scanners out there.

Re:This isn't for the X-ray ones

[thegreatemu]

What no one has ever been able to explain to me is, if there are two models, one that is completely safe and one that _might_ be safe but still uses ionizing radiation, why in the hell are there any of the latter operating???

We're still raping you ...

[shutdown -p now]

... but we take care to not go all the way in!

Re:We're still raping you ...

[shutdown -p now]

My taxes buy a good deal of things, and most of them are nice to have. If your solution to body scanners is not paying taxes, then may I suggest seeking citizenship of Somalia?

Re:Yes, it matters

[Oceanplexian]

That is not necessarily true, plenty of radiation workers live long healthy lives, and there is a lot of controversy surrounding the linear no-threshold model wherein all radiation exposure is dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Back to the point, the real problem with the scanners isn't the pictures or the "radiation", it's the blatent invasion of privacy and expenditure of tax dollars on security theatre.

Re:Don't like it?

[Opportunist]

If it actually brought on any security, I'd maybe even consider accepting it.

I dunno if I'm already a terrorist if I just list the ways you could avoid and evade the whole security theater and get pretty much anything but a megaton nuke on board of a plane, so I'll refrain. But if you know at least a hint of airport dealings and how things run at most airports, the whole thing simply disgusts you.

You might FEEL safer. But only if you never worked at an airport and never had to audit airport security (that's where I lost every semblance of a feeling of security). Hell, most of the things are even blatantly obvious to people who fly frequently.

Re:TSA "Cancer Coffins"

[1s44c]

Don't try to fool me. Everybody knows that chiropractic medicine is quack science, just like global warming or vaccinations for children. The truth is that subluxations are easily cured with a homeopathic bleach solution. And don't get me started on radiation. Just sleep under a crystal pyramid each night like a normal person and you don't have to worry about radiation. Or Thetans.

Don't try to out-looney the resident looney. It won't work.

TSA porno Scanners To Show soft porn only

[surveyork]

Pedobear and other lecherous friends are sad. No more HD porn, only low-res soft porn now. Damn rights activists!