The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners

TheNextCorner points out a video that lays bare a glaring flaw in the TSA body scanners used in airports to detect weapons and explosives. In such scans, citizens are depicted in light colors, while metallic objects show as very dark. The problem comes when you consider that the images are taken with a dark background. From the transcript: "Yes that’s right, if you have a metallic object on your side, it will be the same color as the background and therefore completely invisible to both visual and automated inspection. It can’t possibly be that easy to beat the TSA’s billion dollar fleet of nude body scanners, right? The TSA can’t be that stupid, can they? Unfortunately, they can, and they are. To put it to the test, I bought a sewing kit from the dollar store, broke out my 8th grade home ec skills, and sewed a pocket directly on the side of a shirt. Then I took a random metallic object, in this case a heavy metal carrying case that would easily alarm any of the “old” metal detectors, and walked through a backscatter x-ray at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. On video, of course. While I’m not about to win any videography awards for my hidden camera footage, you can watch as I walk through the security line with the metal object in my new side pocket."

Comments

SSDD

[Johann Lau]

As far as I'm concerned, all of this airport security--the cameras, the questions, the screenings, the searches--is just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they can fuck with you anytime they want. Because that's the way Americans are now. They're willing to trade away a little of their freedom in exchange for the feeling---the illusion---of security.

-- George Carlin

Re:SSDD

[Jafafa Hots]

Exactly. Why bother to go on a suicide mission if something BAD could happen to you instead?

Re:SSDD

[dgatwood]

A terrorist who is actually planning to blow himself up anyway would simply do so between the scan and the pat down upon detection—probably diving into the security line to maximize the casualties. The body scanners are thus completely and utterly ineffectual as a deterrent.

More to the point, the terrorists weren't afraid to bring box cutters onto an aircraft; the metal detectors were obviously not a deterrent. Based on that bit of history, what possible reason could you have for believing that this magic tiger-repelling rock will work better than the last one?

Re:SSDD

[LordLimecat]

Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold,

There are several assumptions (mostly incorrect) in your post:
A) that money that is spent on airport bs would otherwise be allocated to "the people out in the cold"
B) that there are a large number of people in this country dying of exposure (the number is astonishingly low)
C) That those who DO die of exposure could have been saved with more money
D) that if the government doesnt become a charity, then it is responsible for their deaths

You may want to reexamine these assumptions. B especially you may want to research.

Re:SSDD

[aztektum]

Sometimes I remember George Carlin & Hunter S. Thompson are both dead now.

I get sad when I do that.

Re:SSDD

[Xeno man]

The dissuasive role you are referring to is what keeps American from flying more often if at all. It's what is keeping international business people from visiting America. While it may keep joe blow from bringing a gun on a flight just to make a point, it doesn't do a thing to a terrorist because they know they are going to get through because they have studied the system and know what they are doing.

Re:SSDD

[wvmarle]

A large part of the US military spending goes to destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both in the name of liberation and whatnot - but the fact is that lots and lots of locals have been killed, either directly by bombs or bullets, or indirectly due to loss of their home and destruction of general infrastructure in their countries.

Not bombing Iraq and Afghanistan would save the US a lot of money (effectively lowering your immense deficits), and would have saved many lives in the countries affected. Not having military operations all over the world would possibly even have prevented many terrorist attacks to happen in the first place, due to less bad blood about US activities.

Sure you can not prevent all actions from all mad men. Most bombings on US soil have been by US nationals. But not meddling in other countries' internal affairs helps a lot (and that's not an endorsement of either the Taliban or of Saddam Hussein). Leave that meddling to the UN, it's what that organisation was set up for to begin with.

Re:SSDD

[Anonymous Coward]

And Vonnegut.

Re:SSDD

[makomk]

Don't worry, there won't be any of those soon. The Government is rounding them all up and forcing them to leave in preparation for the 2012 Olympics.

Re:SSDD

[stewbacca]

A large part of the US military spending goes to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, which is the real problem. The military is meant to blow things up and kill people. Spending military money on building schools and infrastructure is no longer military money. I suppose if the UN actually had any teeth and actually did things like, oh, follow up on their word when they say things like "let the inspectors in...or else!", then we wouldn't have things like Iraq (well, if there had been a different US President AND the UN did its job, I suppose).

Re:SSDD

[HBI]

Why is this insightful? Where has the UN had any success at all? Just last week, a dual veto of a SC resolution that would have done something about Assad killing his people in Syria occurred. This is an effective organization, one that can't do jack shit about people being killed in the street? But this isn't isolated: let's see what else the UN has done.

Korea? The only reason action was taken in Korea was that the Soviets boycotted the session in question, avoiding a Security Council veto. The UNC structure and DMZ are still there, 60 years on. All of the allied nations have fled except the US. There's a rousing success story.

UN peacekeepers have been involved in Israel since 1948. Note the many wars since.

UN peacekeepers have been in Cyprus since 1964. No resolution, of course.

We can't forget the Iraq-Kuwait observer mission from 91 to 03. They really prevented war in Iraq, border incursions or ground to air attack. They also made sure Hans Blix got into Baghdad and got his mission accomplished. Not.

Note the rush to get the UN involved in such affairs as:
Vietnam
Bosnia
Serbia - the Kosovo intervention happened after the Serbians were pummeled outside UN authority...Russian veto again...
Afghanistan in 2001 (they were there in late 80s-early 90s...great job, UN, first in stopping the 10 year Soviet occupation and then managing its aftermath so well)
Libya in 2011

The list just goes on of UN failures in action, or failures to act in this area.

Re:SSDD

[nine-times]

There's a general problem here: we're fixing last-year's problem.

So we had a plane highjacking by people with knives. The hijackers ran the planes into buildings. This is what we're most focused on preventing, but it's not very likely to happen again. First, pilots and passengers are less likely now to allow someone with a knife to take control of a plane. The reason they allowed it before was that it was basically the policy to do so-- they weren't expecting hijackers to use the plane as a missile. We also are more vigilant about keeping an eye on planes in the airspace around population centers, and we'll be more ready to shoot down planes that are too close to downtown NYC and not following their flight plan. 9/11 won't happen again.

And why would they even try? It's much more effective to find some new vector of attack. It increases your chances of success, and it also increases the terror that it causes in the general population. By using various methods, the attacks become unpredictable and encourage the perception that you might get hit anywhere, at any time.

Re:SSDD

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you actually asked any of them what they want? The most common response seems to be that they want your soldiers the fuck out of their countries.

Test First

[Rtarara]

Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some. Actually test the tech out next time, preferably with open field testing. Geeks can break most anything and it's best to see how they can BEFORE you implement the "important terrorist stopping scanner".

Re:Test First

[0123456]

Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some.

Why would you do that when you can sell useless machines now and then sell slightly less useless machines again in a few years?

You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

Re:Test First

[TheSpoom]

Testing would have delayed the goal of making Michael Chertoff more money.

Re:Test First

[Jafafa Hots]

You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

They ARE intended to do something else. Actually it's their main intent - to keep people simultaneously scared shitless and give them a feeling of security if they are nice and submissive.

And they work extremely well at this. Just look anywhere there are skeptics and you'll see people crying "as long as it keeps me safe on my flight from Omaha to Kansas City!"

what the tsa will actually do

[prehistoricman5]

Since obviously a metal detector will detect that sort of thing, the tsa will now buy new millimeter wave/backscatter x-ray scanners with a traditional metal detector integrated into the system. The only reason they're going to give up their toys is because they can get better ones.

Re:Stop aiding

[BenJCarter]

Idiocracy is a most apt description of our political class...

Re:Surprise it took that long

[Farmer Tim]

Even Gestapo officers had friends...if they knew what was good for them.

Re:TSA is an expense account scam

[dgatwood]

There's one obvious remaining course of action we can take to rein in all the government waste and corruption. Can anyone think of things to try before we take that last drastic step? I'm out of ideas...

Yes, but you're not going to like it. It involves people like you banding together to run for office, then passing laws banning all non-medical use of X-ray or millimeter wave imaging within the bounds of your community or state. If every state did this, the TSA and the companies it supports would eventually wither and die on the vine. Even if they started overturning the laws in the supreme court, after about the twentieth state passed such a law, they'd have their hands full in court for decades—a big enough money sink that it just might be enough to extricate their crania from their recta.

Remember: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Soap hasn't worked. Jury hasn't worked. Yet we as a society seem to have skipped over the most important one on our way to the fourth. Never forget the second.

Security theatre

[quarkoid]

It seems obvious to me that the TSA knew the machines didn't work effectively, but that this didn't matter to them. Airport security isn't about making the skies safer, it's about scaring (some would even say terrorising) the public in order to give the government more power and control. In his video he even says that there was no threat with the old metal detectors...

There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more. The full body scanners do nothing to increase a person's safety.

Let's face it - the terrorists have won. The public are terrified. Sadly it's their own governments which have done the terrorising.

Re:Security theatre

[BiggerIsBetter]

There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more.

The fact that you and others here feel the need to add disclaimers like "(I'm not, by the way!)" says a lot about the oppressiveness of the current regime. People are constantly aware that their comments may be monitored and there may be implications to speaking the truth.

I think I've heard this story before somewhere...

Not only ineffective, but not proven safe

[cbope]

I'm glad the EU has declared backscatter X-ray scanners to be illegal to use in European airports. I work in a radiation industry and know a considerable amount about X-ray physics and medical imaging, and these scanners should never have been taken into use for public screening.

I love going through the US airports and requesting a manual search when they try to put me through the backscatter machines. They always make a big drama over it, but I explain that I work in a radiation industry and I will not subject myself to additional radiation given a choice. Backscatter machines fall into this category, and so far I have not been through a single one. If they try to force me to go through one or not pass the security checkpoint, I will take it all the way to the top if needed. I will not tolerate being scanned by a backscatter machine, nor should anyone else. It's not been proven safe for human use or effective at increasing security.

And let's not even get started about the fact that the TSA have been caught multiple times storing images from the backscatter and millimeter wave machines, when they say publicly that the images are not saved. There is a reason why they earned the nickname, pr0n scanner. There is no valid reason to save the images after you pass screening, unless they are simply playing the CYA game. This should not be allowed.

Note, the backscatter machines are far different than the millimeter wave scanners used in some airports. Millimeter wave is known to be safe. Backscatter is NOT and should never be used on the public.

Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious

[carvalhao]

Mod parent up! Terrorism is all about... Creating terror! And disrupting societies by leading them to change significantly due to that terror. If societies refuse to change, terrorism will fail and the funding will stop coming. Look at IRA and ETA, they were not defeated by expensive equipment or civil rights limitations, they were defeated by societies refusal to become terrified.

TSA safe

[Anonymous Coward]

If I needed a firearm on an airplane, I would probably use the 33 gram CO2 cartridges from the life vest conveniently located under my seat. Put it in a fitting pipe, and all you need is a crude firing device to pierce the seal - blunt force will do.

The TSA lines are there for your illusion of safety. Your real safety lies in the fact that it is rather unusual for people to conspire to kill a plane full of people, themselves included.

An alternative

[shiftless]

Maybe the government could stop aiding the enemy by being stupid.

Easy fix

[Dunbal]

Great, now we'll get a bigger dose of "safe" radiation as they take side pictures as well.

Re:TSA is an expense account scam

[dkleinsc]

There's something missing from your prescription: Ensuring that the new laws that get passed actually get enforced.

That is unfortunately not a minor issue. For instance, Massey Coal has routinely violated laws on mine safety for decades, and donated heavily to the campaigns of the state prosecutors and judges to prevent those laws from ever being enforced - it took the bad press of the Upper Big Branch deaths to put the CEO (who had specifically told his subordinates to break the law) on trial. Similarly, Goldman Sachs probably (although they've never admitted it in court, they're willing to settle the case) committed fraud worth billions, and is going to be let off with paying a fine that's a fraction of the revenue they received for the fraud. And Dick Cheney told the world he committed war crimes (specifically, he ordered torture of prisoners, using the definitions of torture the US used after WW II) on national television, and is still free.

Example Fail

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Korea? The only reason action was taken in Korea was that the Soviets boycotted the session in question, avoiding a Security Council veto. The UNC structure and DMZ are still there, 60 years on. All of the allied nations have fled except the US. There's a rousing success story.

South Korea has about 49 million people living in it. Depending on how you count it, they have the 12th or 15th highest GDP in the world . I think 49 million people would argue that it is a rousing success story. Moron. However, I do agree with your general point that the UN is mostly a legacy of failure, but your cited example of South Korea is a big time fail.