Slashdot Mirror


Rapiscan's Backscatter Machines May End Up In US Federal Buildings

McGruber writes "The Federal Times, a weekly print newspaper published by Gamnett Government Media Corp, is reporting that the Rapiscan Systems 'backscatter' passenger screening machines used by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration will likely be redeployed to federal buildings. Rapiscan System's backscatter machines have exposed passengers to radiation since they were first installed. As previously reported on Slashdot, TSA decided last month to stop using the machines because the manufacturer was unable to make changes to the machines that were mandated by Congress. Now TSA is attempting to sucker another federal agency into taking the nude-o-scopes."

171 comments

  1. Congress? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What better place for people to exposed to needless cancer risk from ionizing radiation concentrated just below the surface of their skin than the place that voted for this?

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    1. Re:Congress? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 0

      Cancer risk from non-ionizing radiation actually ...

      The latest research suggests that it's ability to affect DNA is highly dependent on both frequency and specific coding of genes, the evidence is very murky though. I don't think any congress critter and especially not any lobbyist will go through these things though, they are solely for the plebs.

    2. Re:Congress? by Ferzerp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Incorrect. Backscatter machines use very low amounts of ionizing radiation.

      You're confusing them with the models being left in place, the "millimeter wave" ones, which do not.

    3. Re:Congress? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Oops ... I thought they were both being taken out of commission ... so if I were to travel to the US I'd still have the choice between increased cancer risks and being felt up? (I'm not rich enough to avoid the procedure.)

    4. Re:Congress? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Unless you need to enter a federal building, you get the choice between the "enhanced patdown" and a non-ionising nude scanner (for now, another company may reintroduce backscatter x-ray scanners in the future, since Rapiscan's scanners were only removed for bureaucratic reasons).

    5. Re:Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      http://wh.gov/pu7x

    6. Re:Congress? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      Well as I said it's non ionising, but the jury is still out on the long term effects of THz radiation ... so patdown it would be, assuming I'd still chose to travel to the US despite it's governments hostility to visitors (and it's own population).

    7. Re:Congress? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, you realize that the Congressmen would simply exempt themselves from using these scanners (of course, not due to any negative health effects this machines certainly don't have, but because it would take up too much of their valuable time that is better spent selflessly serving their country). The only people that would be subjected to these scanners would be the tourists and school kids coming in for a tour or to watch a congressional session.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    8. Re:Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great suggestion! The quickest way to drop these devices into the dustbin is to use them to scan our federal representatives! It may also be interesting to see what they are composed of... "Sir (or Ma'am), I keep scanning Representative Boehner, but nothing shows up on the scope!". :rolleyes:

    9. Re:Congress? by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      The internet will be officially dead when nude scans of Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnel are posted...

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    10. Re:Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It makes sense... I work in a government building that is also a tourist attraction. Every day I scan my ID card and breeze through the turnstiles while children, old ladies, and lawyers/lobbyists have to queue up and go through the X-Ray machines. I always smirk when I pass a group of lawyers... yeah they may be getting paid $50/minute and have a suit that cost more than my car but they still gotta take off their belt and surrender their precious cell phones like everyone else...

    11. Re:Congress? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My first thought matched your post. But - Federal Buildings aren't exactly the halls of congress, or even Janet Napolitano's office.

      People enlisting in the armed services traditionally have gone through preliminary indoctrination / induction procedures in federal buildings. A lot of vital statistics stuff is found in federal buildings. FBI offices, ATF offices, federal marshall's offices, and more. The Federal Building in Oklahoma City that was bombed was targeted because the ATF and FBI were located there. Few, if any, of those various federal employees had anything to do with approval of these machines.

      Worse, the public is still being exposed to this crap.

      Congress needs to just mandate that the damned things are destroyed. End of story.

      Congress really ought to just grow some balls, and decide to get rid of TSA and Homeland Security. I've seen nothing to suggest that they have improved on security in the United States. Fund the border patrol, and allow them to do the jobs they have been mandated to do since day one. And, Customs, as well. Keep the Air Marshalls, but put them under the authority of the FBI.

      We've gone so horribly wrong, and Homeland Security is the center of all that wrongness.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can we stop saying that these machines don't have serious health effects? They do. There's no argument about this in the literature. Yes, health risks are serious risks here.

      Why not just read what the experts actually have to say?

      http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

    13. Re:Congress? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Might want to check your sarcasm detector there, buddy

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    14. Re:Congress? by LMariachi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Congress members are already exempt from security screening at the Capitol and their other office buildings. See here for a relevant funny story, if your definition of funny includes a *headdesk* and general despair for the country and the human race in general.

    15. Re:Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been tried before. Nazi germany considered irradiating (undesirable) people with x-rays at post offices and other government buildings. But they were smart enough to scrap that plan.

    16. Re:Congress? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      if I were to travel to the US I'd still have the choice between increased cancer risks and being felt up?

      If you're going to be regularly felt up, you might end up feeling bad because of it. Feeling bad compromises the immunity system in measurable ways, and that increases the risk of getting cancer. So you have the choice between getting cancer in the surface areas of your body, and getting it practically anywhere.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...my neighbor's half-sister makes $74 hourly on the computer. ..."

      ...by manipulating her twat online, no doubt.

    18. Re:Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These machines would be most beneficial if they were dumped in the ocean chained to the representatives and senators who voted for them.

      Tiocfaidh ár lá

    19. Re:Congress? by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      Might want to check your sarcasm detector there, buddy

      I got mine from SarcasiScan and it works 100% guaranteed! And now, with less cancer than the leading brands of sarcasm detectors!

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    20. Re:Congress? by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      What better place for people to exposed to needless cancer risk from ionizing radiation concentrated just below the surface of their skin than the place that voted for this?

      Yeah, but do the feds get to bypass the scanner with a badge/id? Laws are only for the peasants; why should scanners be any different?

    21. Re:Congress? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      mod parent up

    22. Re:Congress? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      As a resident of Maryland, I think I'd prefer noodz of Pelosi to noodz of our senior senator.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    23. Re:Congress? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      I work in a government building that is also a tourist attraction. Every day I scan my ID card and breeze through the turnstiles while children, old ladies, and lawyers/lobbyists have to queue up and go through the X-Ray machines.

      So, what you're saying here is that you're a Soviet mole who's taken the time to establish bona fides, and one of these days you're gonna slide right into said building and cause horrible mayhem?

      While I'm joking about you personally (I'd feel really bad for a few minutes if you got tooken off to Gitmo on the basis of this post), it just shows once again how pointless the fundamental security approaches in place are.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    24. Re:Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my building, "visitors" (i.e. anyone that doesn't have an access badge and correct biometrics) get to deal with the guards and go through the metal detectors, while employees just walk past and look curiously at the security guard feeling up the twelve year old girl.

      There's a reason I post anon. :(

  2. You're fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You continue to fly.

    You continue to work under unacceptable conditions.

    Strike or suffer.

    ruoy4bni

    1. Re:You're fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am fault?

    2. Re:You're fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, slashbots are perdictable. Try focussing on the message.

      erp4bni

  3. Can't we put these in the supermarket? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    They would be great for checking the freshness of avocados. And maybe they can be used to irradiate the meat you buy.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Can't we put these in the supermarket? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Not nearly powerful enough to do that. Just powerful enough to be a cancer risk.

    2. Re:Can't we put these in the supermarket? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      It's called using your fingers and checking for unbroken flesh. All of your food is already irradiated, don't worry, your government loves you.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    3. Re:Can't we put these in the supermarket? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      All of your food is already irradiated ...

      I know this is Slashdot, but most people think that the sun is, in general, a good idea.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Can't we put these in the supermarket? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Top dwellers are not welcome here!

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    5. Re:Can't we put these in the supermarket? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most people - namely Asians in general and Chinese in particular - are staying away from sun.

  4. Duh! by kakaburra · · Score: 2

    What a fucking waste of money

  5. What's with the name, dude? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    So is it Rapiscan as in "add" or Rapiscan as in "ape"?

    1. Re:What's with the name, dude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it's ape, as in "Rapey-scan". They wanted to go with something both memorable and that reflected the intended use, metaphorically speaking. Another success story brought to you by Hot Branding Ltd.

    2. Re:What's with the name, dude? by foobsr · · Score: 1
      So is it Rapiscan as in "add" or Rapiscan as in "ape"?

      Think rape.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    3. Re:What's with the name, dude? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      rapiscan

      rapi - scan

      rapi(d) - scanner

      That would be a pretty logical inference.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    4. Re:What's with the name, dude? by mrbester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given its function Rapey-scan is just as valid.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    5. Re:What's with the name, dude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stephen Colbert beat you to this joke over a week ago.

    6. Re:What's with the name, dude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stephen Colbert stole this joke from slashdot over a week ago.

      FTFY.

    7. Re:What's with the name, dude? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, rap(e)-i-scan makes a great deal of sense.

    8. Re:What's with the name, dude? by foobsr · · Score: 1
      Stephen Colbert beat you to this joke over a week ago.

      Given that I, stationed in Europe, do not watch anything Colbert, this only shows me how undervalued a genius I am.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    9. Re:What's with the name, dude? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's "Rapiscan" as in "rapid scanner".

      Here's a lesson -- run your product name past some marketing people before you start selling it.

    10. Re:What's with the name, dude? by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      Really dumb name. I read it as Rapist Scan, which could mean either it scans for perverts or the machine is operated by perverts.

  6. Is it cheaper? by c0lo · · Score: 0
    So, is it just happened the feds have found a cheaper and more efficient way to execute its citizens than by using drones?

    (should have tried with cyanide gas first)

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  7. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has there been some new threat to federal buildings that bypasses already existing metal detectors and x-ray conveyors such that the privacy and health of civil employees and visitors need be compromised? Or, are we trying to make sure the manufacturers' profits stay up?

  8. excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put one each doorway in all of the NSA buildings.

  9. Yep. And more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I occasionally fly out of Hartford/Sringfield (BDL) and they used to have these GE bomb sniffers & metal dectors. Which I don't think many would object to - metal detector and just something to sense explosives - that's pretty much all we really need.

    Anyway, they were removed for these Rapidscans. I asked the TSA guy while he was feeling me up (I opt out ALWAYS when I see a Rapidscan) about those GE machines and commented how I MUCH prefered them.

    He said, "They were a maintenance nightmare. So we got rid of them."

    Now the Rapidscans are sitting there doing nothing.

    So, while the sheep are so terrified of the extremely unlikely event of another 9/11 (the new cockpit doors eliiminated that threat), we will keep spending money on SHIT produced by companies that are well connected to Congress - maybe GE should have hired Chertoff.

    Of course, the sheep will jump in their cars, speed around and tailgate, eat their junk food, and gain ever more weight. And while they are on their deathbeds, dieing form heart disease or from other complications from obesity or carcinogens while their savings are wiped away and collectors come after them for their healthcare bills (insurance never covers it all), they can be rest assured that they did not die a quick death from a terrorist.

    1. Re:Yep. And more... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Not only that, they'll pound on their chest about the erosion of their nonsensical 'second amendment' rights, while their truly important rights drift away like so much gossamer...

    2. Re:Yep. And more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your truly important rights will disappear in the loss of the rights protected by the 2nd amendment. Don't believe it? What will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to arrest you for no reason? Oh wait, they already have. OK, what will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to pass judgement on you and execute you without a trial? Oh... ermm... they did that too.

      OK, what will you do when they tell you that you have to worship a religion not of your choosing? Or that you aren't allowed to bitch about what a shitty government we have? Or that you can't say the president is a douchebag?

      The whole point to the 2nd Amendment is that it gives the people the ability to defend their unalienable rights if need be. Its not about hunting or sporting clays as our current leadership would have plebs like you believe. Its to give the people the ability to cast down a tyrannical government if ever the need arises.

    3. Re:Yep. And more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today's cliche ridden rant brought to you by the letters F and O.

    4. Re:Yep. And more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FYI, calling people "sheep" is the easiest way to cause everyone to ignore what you're saying.

    5. Re:Yep. And more... by vinehair · · Score: 1

      Your truly important rights will disappear in the loss of the rights protected by the 2nd amendment. Don't believe it? What will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to arrest you for no reason? Oh wait, they already have. OK, what will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to pass judgement on you and execute you without a trial? Oh... ermm... they did that too.

      OK, what will you do when they tell you that you have to worship a religion not of your choosing? Or that you aren't allowed to bitch about what a shitty government we have? Or that you can't say the president is a douchebag?

      The whole point to the 2nd Amendment is that it gives the people the ability to defend their unalienable rights if need be. Its not about hunting or sporting clays as our current leadership would have plebs like you believe. Its to give the people the ability to cast down a tyrannical government if ever the need arises.

      This is what Americans actually believe.

      Good luck taking down an armed military with your plinkers, if they actually WANT to get rid of you. Or they could, you know, keep doing the slow-boil that they've been doing for years. That seems to be working pretty well - as you already note yourself. Why fight them when you can just make them agree with you?

    6. Re:Yep. And more... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      FYI, calling people "sheep" is the easiest way to cause everyone to ignore what you're saying.

      Not really, a grammar error will do just fine. The laser-like focus on the misplaced comma will incite a half dozen threads about the Oxford Manual of Style, totally obscuring any point the thread had to make.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Yep. And more... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      The whole point to the 2nd Amendment is that it gives the people the ability to defend their unalienable rights if need be

      How?

    8. Re:Yep. And more... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      American democracy is far more powerful to effect change than that Colt .45 under your pillow ever will be. Why will we see immigration reform in the USA in the next four years? Because Latinos vote. Why has the Republican party gone loony? Because Tea Partiers vote. Why is weed legal in Washington state? Because of the vote. If you want your rights back stop buying guns and start unelecting the people who are taking them away, and make it clear why you are unelecting them.

    9. Re:Yep. And more... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate small arms. There's a reason the modern army still has an infantry.

    10. Re:Yep. And more... by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Good luck taking down an armed military with your plinkers, if they actually WANT to get rid of you. Or they could, you know, keep doing the slow-boil that they've been doing for years. That seems to be working pretty well - as you already note yourself. Why fight them when you can just make them agree with you?

      The question becomes whether the members of the US armed forces are actually willing to turn their weapons on their neighbors, coworkers or friends? It's one thing to be deployed to a different country in a distant land against a population that differs from you in ethnicity, beliefs, etc. The brainwashing needed there is fairly low level, of the patriotic sort. To view large groups of people from your own country, your own neighborhood, your own church as a mortal enemy that needs to die takes things to a whole different level.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    11. Re:Yep. And more... by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      OK, what will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to pass judgement on you and execute you without a trial? Oh... ermm... they did that too.

      I don't know if that makes it better or worse -- but they have _not_ passed a law that allows them to execute you without a trial.

      What they did, was to write a secret memo that explains why that have that right already. Then they wrote a summary of the secret memo which they just released. They may already be executing people without a trial, but the law allowing this is yet to pass.

    12. Re:Yep. And more... by tqk · · Score: 1

      American democracy is far more powerful to effect change than that Colt .45 under your pillow ever will be.

      Look back a few decades to the VietNam war. A bunch of peasants armed with AK-47s and Pungi sticks routed two Superpowers (first France, then the USA) armed with tanks, jet fighters, B-52s, Air Cavalry, & etc. Look at the US today. The DHS is terrified of shoe bombers. The FBI is manufacturing plots with willing dupes.

      That voting box is looking pretty pathetic these days, and more so every passing day. When your front runners are Obama and Romney, or Clinton and Palin, it's not working.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:Yep. And more... by Teun · · Score: 1
      I'm often working with these: http://www.owensscientific.com/cgi-bin/owensscientific/NORM1.html

      I wonder what they'd say when I hand carry one at the gate and switch it on...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    14. Re:Yep. And more... by Teun · · Score: 1
      US government officials have repeatedly told us the dangers of terrists is because they hate the freedom you guys enjoy.

      So it's only logic you lower the risk of terrorism by taking away these terrible freedoms.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    15. Re:Yep. And more... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that there are roughly 100 million armed citizens in the USA, and there are less than 1 million combat troops in the US military.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    16. Re:Yep. And more... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The question becomes whether the members of the US armed forces are actually willing to turn their weapons on their neighbors, coworkers or friends? It's one thing to be deployed to a different country in a distant land against a population that differs from you in ethnicity, beliefs, etc. The brainwashing needed there is fairly low level, of the patriotic sort. To view large groups of people from your own country, your own neighborhood, your own church as a mortal enemy that needs to die takes things to a whole different level.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Yep. And more... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I'd say that police and military will step in to stop what they consider crazies with guns hurting those other people with the same ethnicity, beliefs etc. as well, even if there isn't a us and them they will invent one to cope with shooting at them. That both the north and south were Americans hardly stopped the Civil War, nor would it stop people shooing each other now. Both democracy and the law has to become extremely corrupted before the people who believe they are defending democracy, law and order switch sides because during any revolution no matter how just there will be looting, mayhem and general lawlessness and they'll see it as their task to end it. Many of the world's worst hellholes have been plagued with civil war for years, even decades. No matter what many will deny the situation is so bad such a last resort is really required.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    18. Re:Yep. And more... by radtea · · Score: 1

      Your truly important rights will disappear in the loss of the rights protected by the 2nd amendment. Don't believe it? What will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to arrest you for no reason? Oh wait, they already have. OK, what will YOU do when they pass a law that allows them to pass judgement on you and execute you without a trial? Oh... ermm... they did that too.

      So since they have passed all those laws, I guess the 2nd Amendment is basically useless as a mechanism for protecting your fundamental rights.

      Whereas here in Canada, where we have moderate gun control (virtually no legal handguns, rifles and shotguns require licensing and training), we have considerably better legal protections against arbitrary arrest than you do in the US.

      It's almost like there is something else--like a functional government that actually represents a broad range of people--that is protecting our rights. Not only does such a system work better at maintaining the rule of law than the juvenile fantasies of gun nuts, it kills fewer people too...

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    19. Re:Yep. And more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence the trend for video-game warfare

    20. Re:Yep. And more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Good luck taking down an armed military with your plinkers"

      You idiot, do you understand what "assault rifles" are actually good for? Large magazines, reliable, good maneuverability, mounts for optics, etc.

      These weapons are designed for the military, because they are effective. The state doesn't want you to have them, because they are effective. Do you really believe that the state has your personal best interests in mind here? *Really*? They don't want you to have them because they are afraid of them, that alone is reason enough to warrant the people keeping and bearing these things in large numbers.

      And you sheeple roll over and vote for Obama like true zombies and drones. If these things were truly "plinkers" the state wouldn't care if you had them.

      They are priority number one for the socialist and you know it. Bow down to your betters drone and pay up. I'll be in the garage reloading.

    21. Re:Yep. And more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More stupidity from the slashdot drones.

      Where is this country you call America?

      I think you are referring to the US. The US is not a democracy - at least it's not supposed to be. A democracy is a recipe for tyranny and violence.

      Fucking morons, I'm surprised you can tie your shoes, your capacity to think is severely limited.

    22. Re:Yep. And more... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      The question becomes whether the members of the US armed forces are actually willing to turn their weapons on their neighbors, coworkers or friends?

      Kent State
      Jackson State
      A certain LA cop currently on the run

      Three examples should suffice; if not go Google for yourself.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    23. Re:Yep. And more... by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      You already have a tyrannical government. How are your guns changing that?

  10. I almost hope they do it... by Improv · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's pretty amusing watching people freak out over these things and call them nude-o-scopes and similar. Just like with gun-control laws, I don't care a lot about the underlying issue, but it's so tempting to take a stance just because the NRA folk are so bloody nuts.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    1. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't care a lot about the fourth amendment, I'm not sure anyone should give a shit what you say.

    2. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clueless liberal. I just joined the NRA because they are one of the few fighting the Democrat's anti-constitutional crap. It's not nuts to want to defend the 2nd amendment. Keep in mind that what the liberals do to the 2nd amendment will be done to the rest.

      Licensing (i.e. permission to be able to exercise the 2nd amendment) is already being imposed on the 1st. Don't believe me? Remember the free-speech zones during the past two DNC's?

    3. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAAaaahahahahahaha. You think it's just the liberals. Bwhahahahahaaaa. That's funny.

    4. Re:I almost hope they do it... by sco08y · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's pretty amusing watching people freak out over these things and call them nude-o-scopes and similar. Just like with gun-control laws, I don't care a lot about the underlying issue, but it's so tempting to take a stance just because the NRA folk are so bloody nuts.

      The NRA folks are nuts? It's the gun grabbers who are calling to lock people away in jail for owning a rifle with scary parts, or for owning a sheet metal box with a spring in it.

      None of the pro-gun folks want to send *you* to jail for being a douche, after all.

      Why do you fear and hate your tax-paying, law-abiding neighbors so much that you want to see them spend hard time in jail for owning a gun?

    5. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clueless liberal. I just joined the NRA because they are one of the few fighting the Democrat's anti-constitutional crap. It's not nuts to want to defend the 2nd amendment. Keep in mind that what the liberals do to the 2nd amendment will be done to the rest.

      Licensing (i.e. permission to be able to exercise the 2nd amendment) is already being imposed on the 1st. Don't believe me? Remember the free-speech zones during the past two DNC's?

      Clueless conservative. We also remember the free speech zones at Republican National Conventions and the ones imposed by George W Bush wherever he went. Would you now like to discuss how some conservatives are advocating that Christians should be more free to build churches than Moslems are to build mosques even though both are guaranteed equal rights and freedom of religion under the constitution? Or how gay people's rights under the constitution should be overridden by christian scripture?

    6. Re:I almost hope they do it... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are massively confusing two distinct issues. The Second Amendment is about a well-regulate militia. The Fourth Amendment is for reasonable search and seizure. Objecting to backscatter X-rays is, unlike the gun nuts, defended by classical readings of the Fourth Amendment. That's aside from the serious issue of exposing people to radiation with minimal safety precautions. Moreover, doing this with federal buildings would be a lot worse. You can at least have other alternatives to flying (long car travel, train travel, boat travel). But when one needs to go do something at a federal agency one doesn't have any options.

    7. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG! Wake up libreral. Owning a clip that can hold more than 7 rounds on a semi-automatic rifle in New York State is now (or soon will be) illegal. It's not retroactive. And the Dems are talking about taking guns too. Don't pay taxes will not just get your gun confiscated, it WILL land you in jail. Just listen to some of the crap coming our of Feinstein's mouth. We would love to have a rational conversation. The NRA did with Biden, but then all their concerns were thrown out the window and he recommended everything on their agenda. And for NYS's new law it was rushed through for a vote so quickly that there was no chance for a rational conversation. You are the one that needs a clue about what is happening.

    8. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Meshugga · · Score: 1

      Wow ... that's all really ... retarded.

    9. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Jessified · · Score: 1

      Simplifying much, with a side order of hyperbole.

    10. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Reverberant · · Score: 1

      None of the pro-gun folks want to send *you* to jail for being a douche, after all.

      So long as we're going to resort to generalities...

      No, they would just rather project your right to confront and shoot kids for the heinous crime of playing their music too loud (or the even more heinous crime of wearing a hoodie in rainy weather while carrying a can of iced tea).

    11. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the even more heinous crime of wearing a hoodie in rainy weather while carrying a can of iced tea

      I'm assuming you are referring to Travon. The same Travon who was beating the crap out of someone and yelled out "I'm going to fucking kill you" as he reached for a firearm the other guy had on him.

      Yea, thats your idea of being killed for wearing a "hoodie in the rain". Right there we have the reason half the country hates you. You are a lying douche.

    12. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking looney. Your the type that NEEDS to get rid of guns cause your dangerous. No one is going door to door to take weapons from you.

    13. Re:I almost hope they do it... by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Second Amendment is about a well-regulate militia

      No, it's not. Just like the 4th prohibits the government from searching the people the 2nd prohibits disarming the people. You get the lowest level of freedom you accept: you probably support NYC stop-and-frisk because you are scared of guns, so stop resisting government control and relax.

    14. Re:I almost hope they do it... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Stop and frisk is covered as not ok under the 4th Amendment. It has nothing to do with whether or not I'm scared of guns. As to the second Amendment it specifically starts with the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". It is the only Amendment with a preamble explaining its purpose.

    15. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A misunderstood purpose, too. "Well regulated" did not mean "pass a whole bunch of pain in the ass rules about" like it does now. It meant "well skilled" or "well practiced". The point being that you could't be good with weapons if you didn't have any to be good with. "Militia" meant "anybody who is physically able to fight when needed". That we now have one thing the founders most decidedly did NOT want, a massive standing military force, does not take away from what the second amendment is all about. It is not about the National Guard, it is not about hunting, it is not about anything other than people having the right to own weapons and become proficient in their use.

      It is similar to why there is no right to "privacy" mentionedi n the Constitution. If you "wanted some privacy" back then it meant you needed to go to the bathroom. They wouldn't waste ink on stuff like that, even omitting the absolute silliness of it from their point of view. Yet today, because the word means something a bit different, some people excuse government intrusion in our lives by saying there's no right to privacy in the Constitution. They're just as wrong as people who think the second amendment is about anything but people owning guns. Period.

    16. Re:I almost hope they do it... by steppedleader · · Score: 1

      It's the gun grabbers who are calling to lock people away in jail for owning a rifle with scary parts

      Even though I'm fairly liberal, I see little reason to believe bringing back the assault weapons ban will make a significant difference in gun deaths -- it would probably be somewhere well south of a 1% difference. So I'm not out arguing that the ban should be brought back.

      However, every time someone says that the only difference between assault weapons and regular weapons is that the former look scary, I have to ask: Why are such guns so popular if that is the case? Do you realize you are implying that all those people clamoring to buy such guns are doing so simply because they look scary? If that is the only distinction between these guns and others, why else buy them? The sort of person who chooses a gun simply based on how scary it makes them look is exactly the sort of person that shouldn't have a gun.

      There are, in fact, functional differences between assault weapons and other guns. How important those differences are with regards to mass shootings seems like a reasonable question, although as I mentioned, I doubt they are huge. Why don't you argue that instead of implying that people who share your politics are just fools who have bought into Bushmaster's marketing that they need an AR-15 to be big scary man?

    17. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 1

      The definition of 'militia' includes pretty much everyone, especially definitions #2, #3 and #4. Changing or limiting the definition of the word may be a clever way to limit the scope of the 2nd Amendment, although I'd have to call shenanigans.

      1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
      2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
      3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
      4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

    18. Re:I almost hope they do it... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Yes, and historically definitions were closer to 1 than others. This isn't "shenanigans" but is the consensus of most law professors, linguists and others. The militias were official organizations under the state governors which eventually became what we call today the National Guard. Definition 4 is particularly egregiously modern and not relevant, and 3 just doesn't make sense in context.

    19. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to disagree but wouldn't a militia of that sort require a state and federal structure similar to the National Guard? I mean isn't the current military situation such that at least some full time soldiers are required. Personally I would like to see that folded into the mission of the Navy as that is a constitutionally described entity, but that may broaden their mission to an unwieldy position. With a strong potential, given current politics, to end with a Navy dept. that was worse than the D.H.S.

      Also, assuming you want all able bodies as part of this militia then wouldn't that require a form of conscription? Perhaps as a prerequisite in order to qualify for a High School Diploma or a GED? In this vein could we get a national holiday of 3 wks (plus travel time), for multiple state operations and competitions? Maybe summer (or what ever season) style camps for the kids. Or would that not be an acceptable use of tax dollars?

      -crazy liberal.

    20. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bother when logic is applied the progun people just stuck their fingers in their ears and repeat the same mantra. God forbid they look inwards and wonder what void they need filled by the big scary guns.

    21. Re:I almost hope they do it... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Definition 4 is particularly egregiously modern

      No it isn't. I don't know where you are getting this information. There is a reason Jefferson said at the time, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That quote was said in support of Shay's rebellion, which was a paramilitary group regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against interference of the government. There was some debate at the time, because not everyone supported Shay's rebellion. John Adams was worried that without central authority, there could be a descent into anarchy, as happened in the French revolution. However, the idea of a corrupt government trying to take their rights was strong in everyone's mind, since that is what had just happened to them a few years previous.

      Some other quotes to drive the point home:

      I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table[, the constitution draft,] gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor. --George Mason

      [W]here and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people? --Patrick Henry

      A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. --Melancton Smith

      Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. --Noah Webster (who ought to know something about the meaning of words)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Teun · · Score: 1
      The (English/Latin, etc) language tells us Militia is plural.

      Presently individuals carrying weapons in the USofA are by no means forced to be 'well regulated'.

      Just wait 'till a couple of sane presidents have stacked your supreme court with judges that understand the previous two points and there will be a lot less violence in the USofA.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    23. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the facts of what the militia consists of...
      http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

    24. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Ad hominem attacks help support your cowardly and ignorant stance. Keep it up.

    25. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When ignorant cowards have no real argument, they utilize logical fallacies such as your appeal to authority. Good work coward. Keep being scared of tools and not your over-reaching government.

    26. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Moreover, doing this [backscatter X-rays] with federal buildings would be a lot worse.

      I'll say. Have you seen the average fatso who works there?

      Yiyiyi!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    27. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Because a guy from the fucking netherlands knows more about english than educated life-long speakers. Enjoy being overrun by muslims!

    28. Re:I almost hope they do it... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Ok. So egregious is probably too strong a wording in this context. But most of your quotes aren't at all relevant to the matter in question. First, you've (again) completely ignored the phrase "well-regulated". Second, the Webster quote, nor the Henry quote, nor the Jefferson mention the word militia. Also, trying to use Patrick Henry as evidence in this sort of situation is particularly strange given that Henry was an anti-Federalist who opposed the Constitution. So generic remarks by him simply don't matter. So let's look at the quotes that do use the word milita" Melancton Smith isn't arguing that that's the default definition of militia, he's arguing that he wants that to be what a properly formed militia is. The George Mason quote meanwhile is out of context, as you can see from reading http://www.saneguns.org/law/mason_01.html for example.

    29. Re:I almost hope they do it... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, I can see you've set your mind and are willing to ignore evidence that opposes your view. Sorry, I thought you were reasonable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:I almost hope they do it... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1
      I've posted this before, but the original language was

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

      In my non-expert opinion the militia "preamble" is sort of relict of the language describing the right to be a conscientious objector. But, let's leave the quibbling over language to lawyers. The question is whether citizens should be considered too irresponsible to defend themselves, and the government should have an absolute monopoly on force. People on the left think so, though they are often reluctant to explicitly present their beliefs. Maybe because their conflict with the Constitution would be too obvious (Listen to their utter contempt for the "privileged white men" who created this country and this isn't really a surprise). The right at least talks about wanting to limit government, which was certainly the spirit of the Constitution, though they don't often live up to their role-models' example, since their kind of conservatism still values external control

      And courts have ruled stop and frisk is a "reasonable" limitation to 4th Amendment rights, kind of like how gun registration, waiting periods, concealment limits, magazine limits, fees, etc., etc. are "reasonable" to the point where it's hard to find what freedom you are left with. Once you start balancing "government interests" with human interests, it's over, because government is obviously very very important .

    31. Re:I almost hope they do it... by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      I see. So noting things like how quotes from Anti-Federalists aren't good guides to what the Constitution means makes one unreasonable? That makes so much sense...

    32. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you've never considered the fact that those "scary" guns really aren't more popular than many "non-scary" ones and it's simply sensationalism, gun-hatred and ignorance making shit up?

      Nawwww can't be....

    33. Re:I almost hope they do it... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Focusing on minutiae and missing the bigger point is a strawman fallacy, and unreasonable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than it already happened in the US

      I guess that makes you the ignorant looney here. Pure evidence of what you said doesn't happen happening. Your the type that NEEDS to be ceonsored because your free speech is dangerous.

    35. Re:I almost hope they do it... by guises · · Score: 1

      Ugh. You're taking a phrase that used to be mean "disciplined" put into the constitution to specifically say "not a bunch of yokels with guns" and yet the NRA (and you) have decided to interpret it as "yes, a bunch of yokels with guns." Then you go on to say that what the second amendment was explicitly about, the security of a free state, is not actually what the second amendment was about. Brilliant.

    36. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      Because there's a strong correlation between "looks scary" and "good ergonomics". 1950s vegetable peelers worked, but a quarter-inch-thick round handle was hard for everyone to use, and impossible for the old or arthritic to use. 1950s shotguns worked, but you had to adapt to the tool - if you were rich, you had an obscure English gunsmith make one to fit you; if you weren't, you made do with what the manufacturer thought was going to be popular. By using a separate pistol grip and an adjustable stock, you can approach the ergonomics of a $30,000 British double rifle for a price that mere mortals can afford. Nobody uses a mouse shaped like a rectangular prism any more, and even the cheapest ones now take into account the shape of the human hand. Why would I want to use a rifle stock that does not?

      Why do people consider ergonomic weapons scary? That's a much more interesting question in my opinion. Some people, it's because they look and feel of military weapons. (Some - many - vets prefer the AR family for this reason - they already know where the buttons and levers are, and overcoming muscle memory is hard - and in this case, unnecessary.) Some people, I would guess, it's because of video games. Some people, violent media. Others, it's a lack of exposure, leading to an overactive imagination inventing disaster scenarios. But these are all speculation, because I'm not aware of a single study anywhere ever investigating that question, and I'd be fascinated to read it if one in fact exists.

    37. Re:I almost hope they do it... by steppedleader · · Score: 1

      I think you are probably right on two points at once. "Assault weapons" look scary because they look like military weapons (which of course are associated more with killing people that the average hunting rifle) and military weapons look the way they do because of ergonomics. It's much easier to effectively use a highly ergonomic weapon in a high pressure situation, be it combat or a mass shooting. That is more than simply a cosmetic difference like some people claim, though.

      I don't know why people don't just argue that in fairly close quarters like where many mass shootings take place, a handgun is as effective as an assault rifle, and someone with a couple handguns and a couple pockets full of magazines will in most cases be able to do just as much damage as someone with an AR-15 (read: Virginia Tech vs. Newtown). That's a perfectly good argument against banning assault weapons -- it's not worth it because it won't have a significant effect. To have a significant effect we would have to ban semi auto guns in general, which just isn't going to happen in the US without a massive cultural shift, regardless of the daydreams of a few congresscritters on the left.

    38. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure any attempt at banning semiautomatic firearms will make things worse. There aren't many gun nuts out there who would resist a ban with violence, but a ban is usually proposed in the context of reducing a vanishingly rare kind of crime. Even if we assume only a percent of a percent of a percent of American gun owners - one in a million - take it badly, (I have no idea how accurate that is; let's just pretend) one must remember there's slightly more civilian-owned firearms than citizens. Let's pretend that all the old sources of mass shootings are successfully stopped by a ban. By my estimate, there's going to be a substantial short term increase in violence - thank you first-order unintended consequences. If the police response to 300 mass shootings, sniper attacks, and other sorts of high-profile violence in a month is half as bad as the LAPD is demonstrating right now, I'd guess more people - innocent bystanders - will be shot by the police than the bad guys.

      This will go over with the public about as well as a church fart, alienating them from their erstwhile protectors - second order unintended consequences. What's the result of a population at odds with its domestic police force? I dunno, I'm not a political scientist, but I get the feeling I don't want to find out firsthand.

      Random thoughts related to and inspired by your post; pardon me, but it's late:

      • * A pistol grip is actually worse for "spraying fire from the hip" than a conventional rifle's grip angle, and vice-versa. There's a reason that, with the rise of bright, green laser sights, gunmakers are prototyping machine guns with chainsaw grips.
      • * I think there's a scene in "Saving Private Ryan" where Tom Hanks' character is developing carpal tunnel syndrome due to the grip angle of his M1 Garand, which he carries constantly at the ready. If this is well researched like the rest of the movie, I can see why the military prefers pistol grips. VA healthcare is expensive.
      • * Some of the more egregious lawmakers are proposing mandatory safety standards for firearms, while working to ban safety features. (I can't help but wonder if it's an attempt to set standards, and make meeting them impossible) The barrel shroud is there to keep you from burning your dumbass self, not "that shoulder thing that goes up". Some also promote mandatory ergonomic standards for offices, while trying to ban similar on firearms.
      • * Olympic shooters rely on custom ergonomics to the point where, if their gun breaks, they bow out of an event instead of borrowing a gun - many times, they simply cannot fire another athlete's gun with acceptable accuracy; "acceptable" defined as "has any hope of winning".
      • * When I said "By using a separate pistol grip and an adjustable stock", I forgot to point out that there are dozens of manufacturers making differently shaped grips, many making an assortment. By relying on modular parts, you can get a custom fit without a custom pricetag.
    39. Re:I almost hope they do it... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Not to disagree but wouldn't a militia of that sort require a state and federal structure similar to the National Guard?

      Not sure, but even at the time of the Civil War, it was highly likely to find armies arranged by state, not necessarily at a federal level. (I know I'm ignoring the bulk of your comment that addresses the current military, but I was just looking at the basic issue at the time the 2a was ratified).

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    40. Re:I almost hope they do it... by robsku · · Score: 1

      Other than it already happened in the US

      What the fuck are you smoking? I watched that video, and maybe you should too before you reply.

      Now I didn't plan to take part on this argument and all I'm saying here is that the video clearly is not about what you think it is - and it's title is some kind of stupid scam (not clever scam, there's nothing "clever" about posting video about X and claiming it's about Y).

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    41. Re:I almost hope they do it... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Strongly related is weight: a modern AR weighs considerably less than an M1 and a fair bit less than an M14 (and less than your average 30 06 or 308, and less powerful to boot). This makes it easier/better for my girlfriend and son to shoot.

      There is one guy on a gun board I frequent who has fused wrists. The pistol grip on modern sporting rifles is almost mandatory for him to be able to shoot at all. I think he might consider an ADA claim if pistol grips are banned in my state.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    42. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Because a guy from the fucking netherlands knows more about english than educated life-long speakers. Enjoy being overrun by muslims!

      Hey, mandingo cuckold porn is very popular with some.

    43. Re:I almost hope they do it... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Wow ... that's all really ... retarded.

      skipping the 'insensitive clod' opening and moving right over to:

      Stop calling crap like that 'retarded.' That's really lame.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    44. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and historically definitions were closer to 1 than others. This isn't "shenanigans" but is the consensus of most law professors, linguists and others. The militias were official organizations under the state governors which eventually became what we call today the National Guard. Definition 4 is particularly egregiously modern and not relevant, and 3 just doesn't make sense in context.

      There's longer replies but this is the only one that currently matters:

      "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
      Justice Scalia, DC vs Heller.

      Sack up, realize you've lost at the SCOTUS level multiple times now, and pass an amendment if you want to ban all guns.

    45. Re:I almost hope they do it... by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

      It's not the weapon that's scary, but the thought of what might happen if it ends up in the hands of someone with a reason to mow down a bunch of kindergarten kids. Less guns in US homes will equate to less gun deaths.

    46. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      While I understand that argument, I consider the point void if it's accompanied by an increase in home invasions involving gangs of about a half dozen men armed with machetes and nail bats who don't particularly care if the homeowners are home, who don't like leaving witnesses, and can be certain that there won't be any effective armed resistance. I'm frequently disappointed by those on both sides of this argument who assume there's never unintended consequences. And we can test for that using statistics, it's just that frequently people can't be arsed to try - or worse, deliberately fail to consider the side effects of their actions or the public policy they advocate.

    47. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

      Well we have no handguns or assault rifles in homes here in Canada and I've never heard of such an event occurring.

    48. Re:I almost hope they do it... by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      We have something terribly wrong with our culture - perhaps too many desperate, angry people with nothing to lose - and, with the exception of them hunting in packs, I found this scenario in newspapers.

      Canadians are lucky.

  11. Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly, only visitors would be subjected to these kinds of scanning's, making it feel a lot like a way to keep voter participation to a minimum. Imagine having to pass through these 2+ times a day (before/after lunch) just to be a part of the system as a non-elected participant.

  12. Genesis of the name by blind+biker · · Score: 2

    At the pre-launch meeting:

    VP of marketing: we have several suggestions for the product name
    CEO: it doesn't really matter, the sale is a shoe-in. We could call it anything we want.
    Product manager: O RLY!?

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  13. the land of the free and the home of the brave... by fufufang · · Score: 1

    News at 6 from North:

    In the land of the free and the home of the brave, people are so afraid terrorist attack, they have decided to give up their own liberty (and possibly their health) in exchange for (a possibly false sense of) security.

    .....

    I think that might be how the rest of the world perceive the new USA.

  14. Adult movie theaters by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    Adult movie theaters should be snatching (pun intended) these things up. New 21st century peep show technology!

  15. Not THz.. GHz.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The millimeter wave scanners run at 30 GHz.. 1mm wavelength. I think that propagation at 30 GHz is fairly well understood. Penetration is very small, so energy is deposited in the skin.

  16. The only thing more disgusting by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 3, Funny

    The only thing more disgusting than Congress would be an image of Congress, nude.

    1. Re:The only thing more disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, they'd be exempt...mainly because there's not enough brain-bleach available in the world to un-see that visual... (In fact, you OWE me some for what you DID share with us as it is...)

  17. Re:the land of the free and the home of the brave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USA has become a country too afraid to make their enemies feel insulted to do anything about terrorism.

    We're in a new liberal world order here, and our "leadership" is far more interested in appeasing terrorists than actually doing anything about the problem of terrorism.

    Our solutions to terrorism thus far have been to topple two nation-states, only one of which had anything to do with terrorism, and then retreat and cower in the corner and beg the world for forgiveness.

  18. Much better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The citizens and non-citizens alike already know they are taking a risk in visiting a federal building. ;)

  19. Don't some buildings aready have them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DOJ already has these in place... I worked on a contract in and out of that building all this past Summer....

  20. All for it.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    As long as every official is FORCED AT GUNPOINT to go through them. Every single senator, Secretary, Tzar, even the President needs to be forced to use them at gunpoint like all of us have had to.

    And every single one of the police force and security forces as well. they get the exact same treatment that is forced upon the rest of us.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  21. Still lying by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

    TSA still claims that NIST evaluated the machines and declared them safe even though NIST has plainly stated that it did not and can not.

    1. Re:Still lying by calidoscope · · Score: 1

      With the radiation dose equal to a few minutes of flying at 35,000', use of the system poses less of a risk than the flight.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    2. Re:Still lying by radtea · · Score: 2

      With the radiation dose equal to a few minutes of flying at 35,000', use of the system poses less of a risk than the flight.

      The dosimetry that generates this number is inappropriate for this kind of machine.

      Short version: the dosimetric standard used by the company to claim these devices are safe assumes that the incoming x-rays are absorbed uniformly over the whole body, but in fact they are primarily absorbed in the skin. The skin dose is therefore much higher than the meaningless and irrelevant "whole body dose" that the dosimetric rig used measures.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:Still lying by sjames · · Score: 2

      That isn't relevant to my statement at all. TSA claimed NIST somehow vouched for the things, but NIST has stated the opposite emphatically.

      As to your claim, that has also been debunked. The radiation from the flight mostly passes through without an interaction. That which does interact does so through the entire volume of your body, spreading the dose.

      In contrast, the X-Rays from the backscatter device all interact at a very shallow depth (necessarily), so the dose is confined to the volume near the surface of your body and amounts to several times the dose from a flight. Further, it scans across the person, so the dose is more intense in a particular area at a time.

    4. Re:Still lying by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The measurement is actually the same either way. It's just measuring total dose, regardless of how that dose is distributed (that's total quantity of radiation, not per voume). That's perfectly fine if you happen to know how the dose is distributed (or if it doesn't matter). Based on data for X-rays of that frequency, it's easy to work out the dose distribution in a human with respect to skin depth. IIRC, the skin region gets about two orders of magnitude higher dose per unit volume than if the radiation was distributed across the whole body. In some cases, that could be of significant concern. However, two orders of magnitude is still so far below the acute-effect threshold that it doesn't really matter.

      It's standard procedure, when discussing and measuring cancer risks, to use whole-body dose because it's more convenient and sufficiently accurate as long as the dosing isn't highly localized.

    5. Re:Still lying by calidoscope · · Score: 1

      You apparently don't know the difference between radiation flux and radiation dose. Dose, by definition, takes into account the interaction (or lack thereof) with matter, where a lower interaction rate for a given flux will result in a lower dose. In addition, the dose units "REM" and "Sieverts" also take into account the different biological effects of different radiation - a given energy deposition in tissue from neutrons will have a higher dose than a given energy deposition from gamma rays.

      You're also a bit off base about the depth of interaction from the X-rays used in backscatter - after going through a couple of mm of plastic on the backscatter system and through clothing, all of the really low energy X-rays are already attenuated before they reach the skin. The "interaction depth" is not so much from a lack of penetration from the incident X-rays as it is the higher attenuation of the backscattered photons.

      Finally, a significant portion of the dose while flying is delivered by muons induced by cosmic rays. While they do have a very long range in matter, they do interact with matter.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    6. Re:Still lying by sjames · · Score: 1

      If I'm confused, so are a large number of concerned radiologists, oncologists, and physicists. Google is your friend.

      If they were THAT attenuated before they hit the skin, they wouldn't be able to produce the objectionable images they are so well known for.

      It is the TSA that is confused about dose vs. amount of energy thrown at something. They looked at the energy, compared it to the energy of background radiation and naively said, cool! It's safer than mother's milk. Had THEY taken actual dose and biological effect into account, they would be more alarmed like the oncologists, radiologists, and physicists are. You got your figures from TSA, so...

      I NEVER claimed muons don't interact with matter, but as you note, they have a long range and the body isn't that big, so, in fact, most (not all) pass right through.

    7. Re:Still lying by calidoscope · · Score: 1

      By the time the X-ray beam goes through the plastic wall between the source and the person being scanned, the X-rays with energies low enough to have significant photo-electric interactions with the primary elements of skin, namely H, C, N & O will have been attenuated. That leaves Rayleigh or Compton scattering for the primary interaction. Keep in mind that the cross-section for 180 degree Compton scattering is fairly constant to close to 50 keV, requiring Z's to be in the mid-20's for significant photo-electric absorption (and this is something that I found out from an astrophysics text book - most physicists, radiologists or oncologists don't seem to care about differential cross-section for Compton scattering).

      There have been anecdotes about breasts reconstructed after a mastectomy showing up on backscatter as the silicone fluid attenuates the back scattered photons more than normal tissue.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  22. Shareholder by PPH · · Score: 1

    No doubt some TSA officials are investors in Rapiscan. So there's no way that company will be taking a loss on these things.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Shareholder by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      No doubt some TSA officials are investors in Rapiscan. So there's no way that company will be taking a loss on these things.

      Now we just need a way to check whether this is true or not.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    2. Re:Shareholder by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I wonder about conflict of interest stuff like that. When Taser went public, that very week there was a sudden news special about how they can kill people. Not weeks or months before, or weeks or months after. Right then.

      Somebody was looking to get paid somehow, via stocks, shorts, back alley...

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  23. Drug testing by imuffin · · Score: 1

    I was thinking I'd buy up all the old machines at bargain basement prices and then sell them to companies that do ore-employment drug testing.

    A common way to beat a drug test is to smuggle in clean urine, say, in a condom taped to your thigh. If people had to be naked-imaged first, this would be quite difficult.

    If these machines can't be used to fight terrorism, my company could facilitate their use fighting the war on drugs. And make a tidy profit too.

    1. Re:Drug testing by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      You are the sort of person who pushes us all down the slippery slope.

  24. Prisons by Quick+Reply · · Score: 1

    I was hoping that they could go into prisons instead of being destroyed. But only prisoners and their scumbag visitors have to. Go through them. Prison staff and lawyers get safe ones when they need to be screened. Actually scratch that, send the lawyers through the back scatter too.

  25. There is a plus side to all of this, folks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If installed in Congress the low levels of radiation might actually render congress-men and (and -women) infertile, reducing the chances of their genetic material being passed on without the use of a clerk or student aid worker.

  26. Congress protecting themselves from the people by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    how democracy like.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  27. Re:the land of the free and the home of the brave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would make more sense if anyone in America had actually supported this.

  28. Michael Chertoff by efudddd · · Score: 1

    Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, has spent years explicitly pushing Rapiscan in airports. His security consulting agency includes a client that makes the machines.

  29. Frat parties? by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

    Seems fraternities could fund their parties by selling the pictures.

  30. Backscatter X-Ray Cancer Risks by billstewart · · Score: 1

    The primary risk is that the radiation is concentrated at the skin, but the "safety" studies the TSA was claiming to have used assumed that it's spread out through the body. Nobody wanted to take responsibility for doing an honest risk assessment. And because they were able to take them out of use because they didn't have a censorship feature, they didn't have to address that, but if they get deployed in Federal buildings, they might have to face serious challenges that they can't deflect by saying "Terrorist Underwear Bombers!"

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Backscatter X-Ray Cancer Risks by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      But it's somebody else's budget. THAT is the point... TSA gets their money back, manager gets prompted. Another Federal agency gets TOLD to buy these and sticks the bill.

      This is where we have no laws against such contempt... Congress told one agency to certify the safety risks. They know it will fail, but Congress didn't rule on the MACHINES themselves so just move the machines somewhere else..

      People responsible need to go to jail for contempt of Congress. Best thing about contempt is that they don't have to consider let you out until you stop being in contempt.

    2. Re:Backscatter X-Ray Cancer Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly the same moral hazard as collateralization of mortgages!!!

  31. No, Rule 34 still applies by billstewart · · Score: 1

    The TSA folks have apparently been passing around X-ray porn for a while, in spite of official claims that the machines don't support it. And the standard images of the naked TSA official that they keep putting in press releases are low-res newspaper-quality versions, not the full resolution that the actual operators can see if they want.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  32. Why Federal Buildings Have Metal Detectors by billstewart · · Score: 1

    If you were paying attention a decade or two ago, Federal court buildings and many state and local court buildings all got metal detectors in a big hurry after some judge got shot by somebody who didn't like a decision they'd made.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Why Federal Buildings Have Metal Detectors by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Yes - but you do realize that "Federal Court" and "Federal Building" are not exactly synonymous?

      I started googling for more info, and found this PDF:
      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41138.pdf

      Among odds and ends I found were a "federal building and post office", and several "federal building and federal court". The Pentagon and the US Supreme Court are both federal buildings. It seems that my own definition wasn't very accurate - even some warehouses are classified as federal buildings!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  33. Branding genius . . . by flug · · Score: 1

    Who's the branding genius behind the name "Rape-Scan Systems".

    I mean, really, that's exactly what it is--but usually they don't admit it so blatantly . . .

  34. Epic Fail by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    Not only are these scanners a very expensive waste of money as they fail to detect what they're supposed to detect, they're also a health hazard. Please stop this overpriced security theater and use the resources to actively prevent wannabe-terrorists from becoming the real thing. That's much more effective on every level. I mean even if the scanners actually work, what's to prevent a terrorist from setting off a bomb in the queue of people waiting to be scanned...? - By removing the terrorist of course. i.e. preventing radicalization or use early detection to identify and incarcerate those beyond prevention.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  35. End run around the safety study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a Congressional mandate for the TSA to do a real safety study on these machines.

    After stalling for a long time, the timing of the machine's removal from airports may have made this request moot.

    The removal and re-deployment should not be an excuse for the TSA to get out from under this request.

  36. Rapey-scan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rapey-scan

    There, I said it.