Slashdot Mirror


TSA Finishes Removing "Virtual Nude" X-Ray Devices From US Airports

dsinc writes "The Transportation Security Administration announced it has finished removing from all airports the X-ray technology that produced graphic and controversial images of passengers passing through security screening checkpoints. The machines, which the TSA first deployed in 2008, provoked public outrage as the technology, better able than traditional X-rays to detect hidden contraband, also created images that appeared as if they were 'virtual nudes.' Critics called this an invasion of privacy and questioned whether the scanning devices truly lacked the ability to save the images, as the TSA claimed."

172 comments

  1. Analog hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The analog hole always existed, and always will. If one of the TSA Molesters, err, Protectors, saw an image on the screen they wanted to keep, all they had to do was hold up their cell phone and snap a pic.

    Their arguments about how TSA agents aren't able to save the generated images is and always was total bullshit.

    1. Re:Analog hole by Bluude · · Score: 1

      Ratiation! Let's not forget the reluctance to allow a non-government agency the right to test the radiation levels.

    2. Re:Analog hole by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Of course they can. The agents can't (unless they're very technically inclined), but there's nothing preventing the organization as a whole from doing so. Nothing whatsoever. Software can be changed, silently and without any hint that it has been changed. For all we know, this has already happened.

      No, from a philosophical point of view, there's no difference between walking through the millimeter-wave scanners at an airport and texting naked photographs of yourself to your boyfriend or girlfriend. Both indicate a complete lack of concern for your own privacy.

      --

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

    3. Re:Analog hole by Jockle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now all they need to do is remove themselves from US airports, and preferably, from the US itself!

    4. Re:Analog hole by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Well, not quite. One case arises only if I think someone would be interested in seeing the images. The other arises only if I think it worth going somewhere.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    5. Re:Analog hole by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      No, from a philosophical point of view, there's no difference between walking through the millimeter-wave scanners at an airport and texting naked photographs of yourself to your boyfriend or girlfriend.

      Choice, as well of knowing it's happening. If you send photographs of your naked body to your boyfriend or girlfriend, you have to make a conscious decision to do it, you know who gets it (Although you don't know what they're going to do with it.) and you're OK with it. With the airport scanners, the only choice you had was to be scanned or undergo a physical search, and there was no way to know for sure if the operator was keeping a copy. I think that that, more than anything else, was what people objected to.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    6. Re:Analog hole by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree with you in concept. I would point out in 4 years no random photos of celebrities, hot women, etc found their way onto the internet.

      I was fully expecting for the TSA have to denouce some photos and fire a few people by now for actually having leaked some photos.

      Of course that doesn't mean the ability doesn't exist just means that those with access are keeping their mouths shut and are behaving. not impossible but I do find it unlikely.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:Analog hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole reason these machines were introduced was to exploit your analog hole...

    8. Re:Analog hole by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. That's like saying that the ability to photoshop my head onto a naked body is the same as my posting nudes on the Internet. Just not comparable.

    9. Re:Analog hole by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Informative

      it was the U.S. Marshalls who leaked pictures in Florida from Gen 2 mm wave machines, the machines for which was claimed the operators "cannot store, print, transmit or save the image"

    10. Re:Analog hole by erroneus · · Score: 5, Informative

      The TSA would NEVER use a scanning device without the ability to record and save the data. Take it from a former screener. *I KNOW* (caveat, I never used one of these backscatter machines as an operator... they weren't in airports when I was a screener.)

      Every one of the X-Ray devices I operated had the ability to save and could even print images. And to me it made sense. Evidence. Once I saw a human torso come through. I couldn't resist printing the image. We did not open the containers... Another time, a loaded pistol passed through in an inappropriate container. A screening supervisor felt confident that he could remove the pistol and unload it. I didn't feel uncomfortable about it -- I'm okay around guns. He obviously knew what he was doing as well. But people freaked out just the same. The image was saved.

      If you wanted to be able to prove something, a picture is better than testimony. What makes anyone believe the TSA when they say they aren't saving the images?!

    11. Re:Analog hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they could always ban them from taking their phones to the checkpoint.

    12. Re:Analog hole by geezer+nerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amen! The TSA was never necessary, and still isn't.

    13. Re:Analog hole by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3

      And I'd like to point out that the only way in which they 'behaved' was by keeping all the juicy pics for themselves. I know this may be hard to accept, but not everyone feels the need to upload every image they may have to the internet. Wanking to images of thousands of naked 14 year olds is their greatest reward. Why would they want to share it?

      I actually don't think it's all that surprising that nothing leaked. The vast majority of those people are true believers. Their secret but unclassified procedures haven't been leaked either. Probably because no anti-TSA people have infiltrated their numbers.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    14. Re:Analog hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the argument was total B.S. Think about it.

      Suppose that one of the scanners got lucky and spotted Mr. Terrorist carrying some hidden weapons with which to blow up or hijack the plane. If you were the TSA, wouldn't you want the ability to capture the incriminating scan for use in prosecuting Mr. Terrorist?

      If you were the TSA and you weren't smart enough to figure out that you would want to save scans in such situations, then you've just wasted a ton of taxpayer money on machines lacking a key, obvious feature.

      The fact that the same feature could be so easily abused to invade the privacy of the law-abiding public is, obviously, a major argument against having these machines in operation at all. But the proper way to counteract that is with controls on the operators, and arguments as to why the benefits of the machines outweigh the drawbacks - not with pretending that the feature doesn't, and couldn't, exist.

    15. Re:Analog hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could easily have used IR lights to prevent cell phone cameras from being able to take clear pictures.

    16. Re:Analog hole by fredklein · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course it was Bullshit. The spec documents the TSA put out for the machines specifically required them to be able to save and transmit the images!

      Google for 'epic tsa spec', and find this: http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf

      (Not to mention, how'd they get the sample images they show on TSA.gov, if the machines cannot save and transfer images??)

    17. Re: Analog hole by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      I always opt for the pat down, they often try to tell me it's sound waves, I tell them I am a physicist by trade (I am not at all) and that I know what a millimeter wave is, I also tell them I hope they are getting paid enough because it's unlikely they will have a long healthy retirement. They go quiet.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    18. Re:Analog hole by Spykk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point is largely irrelevant anyway. Would you be comfortable allowing strangers to look into your bathroom while you use it even if you could guarantee they couldn't take a picture? If not, then why does it become OK as soon as the strangers wear a shirt that says TSA on it?

    19. Re:Analog hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got (and enjoyed) your joke, though sadly no one else seems to have...

    20. Re:Analog hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well played, sir!

    21. Re:Analog hole by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      What makes anyone believe the TSA when they say they aren't saving the images?!

      They probably are, but then again, the screens are no longer seeing actual scans - instead the computer is analyzing the image and identifying suspicious locations on a generic human illustration.

      Sure they can probably save the image (probably both the illustrated version and the actual scan) but said images cannot be retrieved directly.

      That's the difference in the scanners - instead of looking at actual scans, the new scanners only draw rectangles when they detect something suspicious on an illustrated human form. The screeners know where to examine the person and don't get nudie pics. At least immediately. They probably have to shut down the scanner, remove the disk then attach it to a regular PC.

    22. Re:Analog hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes anyone believe the TSA when they say they aren't saving The images?!

      The TSA is not a hive mind. They employ a lot of low-level grunts. If they were saving the pictures, some whistle blower would have gone to the press, or to wikileaks.

      There were plenty of factual things wrong with the scanners: they cost the American taxpayer a ton of money, they violated people's privacy, they were possibly a health risk to operators, and they didn't actually work if the contraband was placed on a person's side. No need to invent new problems.

    23. Re:Analog hole by hazem · · Score: 1

      Well they could always ban them from taking their phones to the checkpoint.

      So we need a TSA to monitor the TSA?

      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    24. Re:Analog hole by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      "(Not to mention, how'd they get the sample images they show on TSA.gov, if the machines cannot save and transfer images??)" Uh.. Photoshop and or Illustrator or who knows what else. They are called mock-ups.

      I have no idea if they really were mock-ups or real images, but our UI designers produce mockups of what they want our web-pages to look like all the time without actually building the web-pages.

    25. Re:Analog hole by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Also IIRC, in India some male star's junk was leaked almost immediately. Their procedures were probably different.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re:Analog hole by mysidia · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you in concept. I would point out in 4 years no random photos of celebrities, hot women, etc found their way onto the internet.

      Just because it wasn't on Twitter or the front page of Slashdot doesn't mean that it has not happened.

      Maybe it happened in a manner that neither we nor the celebrity found out about it... because we're not Facebook friends with the guy or whatever.

    27. Re:Analog hole by mysidia · · Score: 1

      . They probably have to shut down the scanner, remove the disk then attach it to a regular PC.

      They probably upload the images to the cloud.

      So if a technician needs to review the image; they have to login to a certain Dropbox account.....

    28. Re:Analog hole by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Another time, a loaded pistol passed through in an inappropriate container. A screening supervisor felt confident that he could remove the pistol and unload it. I didn't feel uncomfortable about it -- I'm okay around guns. He obviously knew what he was doing as well. But people freaked out just the same. The image was saved.

      you may have just posted the only known instance of the TSA doing their job...

    29. Re:Analog hole by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      > Every one of the X-Ray devices I operated had the ability to save and could even print images. And to
      > me it made sense. Evidence. Once I saw a human torso come through. I couldn't resist printing the
      > image.

      And I worked in Hospital IT. You know what we have in common there.... being responsible for other people's stuff.

      What SHOULD have happend when you took that picture you couldn't resist?

      In a hospital, we have the same problem with medical records. Whether it was Princess Di or some Saudi Prince (I worked at a very large world-renowned hospital) hundreds of hospital workers would look up their medical records out of curiosity.

      But....this is other people's personal, private records, or in your case things. Its really not right, so, we did something about it. We audit. Now the single most common reason to lose your job at the hospital is inappropriate records access.

      Yes.... that picture should have caused an audit log, that should have been reviewed, and you should have been fired....but....you wouldn't have done it, because of the training you go to every year that tells you its being audited.

      That's what a responsible organization does. One that deserves the trust of the people that go through it.

      Don't get me wrong, I totally understand and, on some level feel bad for people who this happens to, human curiosity and novelty are strong impulses which are generally very good, but, we are talking about personal, private records and things.

      Though I have said all along, if there was an airline I could walk on with my bag, go through no security checkpoint at all, sit down in a seat, and pay cash right then and there for the ride, with no id. I would fly it every time, and not worry the least bit about it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    30. Re:Analog hole by erroneus · · Score: 1

      TSA people are NOT allowed to touch firearms. There is no training for that and the potential liability is too high. There are always LEOs available for just such events.

    31. Re:Analog hole by erroneus · · Score: 1

      The human torso was not exactly private property. It was something for medical students or something like that. Either way, it was an MRI image.

      Yes, there was a lot of novelty involved there. Privacy? Not so much. But if I had lost my job over it, I would have completely understood. :)

    32. Re: Analog hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously suggesting that after spotting the hidden item of contraband/weapon that all the TSA screener would do in your scenario would be to take a screen dump from the machine showing the item on the subject? Not progress to a physical search, a) to verify that there really was something, and b) to prevent the item from being carried into the aircraft?

    33. Re:Analog hole by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Analog hole

      Why oh why do you have to bring goatse into this?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    34. Re:Analog hole by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What does photoshopping your head onto a naked body have to do with scanners that can map out the shape of your naked body? Just not comparable.

      --

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

    35. Re:Analog hole by sjames · · Score: 1

      Except that I have not chosen to be in a mutually committed relationship with the TSA and never would. I'm not at all convinced that they have my back.

      Then again, I have never texted any photograph of myself to anyone in any state of dress.

    36. Re: Analog hole by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      So do you always make things up to make people feel bad? Or just when the TSA is involved?

      Millimeter length waves are not known to decrease life expectancy [in non-boiling power ranges].

    37. Re:Analog hole by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      The human torso was not exactly private property.

      I can't think of anything more private.

    38. Re:Analog hole by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Though I have said all along, if there was an airline I could walk on with my bag, go through no security checkpoint at all, sit down in a seat, and pay cash right then and there for the ride, with no id. I would fly it every time, and not worry the least bit about it.

      Well, you'll probably need ID, but you can do that right now today. The flight might take longer and be a bit less comfortable (very rarely will you get even bathroom facilities), and it will cost more, but you can do that.

      How? You can learn to fly a small aircraft. Takes a few weeks if you concentrate, maybe a couple of years if you're a weekend flyer. And without modifications, you can pretty much fly through the entire continental US, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and continental South America.

      Or, if you want, you can have someone else do all the hassles for you and charter a small aircraft to take you to your destination.

      It costs a lot more, is a lot slower, and is subject to weather delays, and is a lot less comfortable, but it makes the journey fun. And for the most part, you just show up at the FBO, say hello, pay your fare and hop on. You can do it at your own convenience, too - very rarely are these flights scheduled. As long as it's reasonable, you can book anytime that's available.

      . They probably have to shut down the scanner, remove the disk then attach it to a regular PC.

      They probably upload the images to the cloud.

      So if a technician needs to review the image; they have to login to a certain Dropbox account.....

      Except taking out the hard drive shuts down the scanner. So now you have a huge lineup of people waiting to pass through security and the technician shut down the scanner (because without said hard drive, no new scans can be saved).

      Of course, then comes the issue of credibility - and traceability. After all, if it was some no-name person, there isn't much to go on (the guys seeing the scans are separate and have no clue who is walking through). So a technician really has to be on the ball to note when some celebrity walked through. Else they have scans of people who could be fat, thin, ugly, or beautiful, or trans or whatever. Remember, all they have to go by is an illustration - the actual scan is not viewable until the drive is removed.

      It's what separates the old scanners from the new - no one sees the scans - just a generic human body illustration.

    39. Re: Analog hole by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Only when it's a complete waste of my money, when they are trying to guilt me into the system with lies themself (it is not sound waves, or basically sound waves).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  2. Misleading headline by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although the X-ray versions have been removed, the equally invasive millimeter-wave versions are still there. The only difference is that now you have to spend a little time changing the device configuration to save off the images instead of being able to see them live.

    --

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

    1. Re:Misleading headline by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      Although the X-ray versions have been removed, the equally invasive millimeter-wave versions are still there.

      I am pretty certain that the only reason they have admitted that X-ray devices are "bad" is because they were ready to sell the new and improved millimeter-wave devices (without paying back the money or compensating the victims for defective X-ray devices).

      I give it a couple more years -- and then the privacy/health risks of new millimeter-wave devices will probably come into question so that they can replaced by super-particle-wave devices.

    2. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Although the X-ray versions have been removed,

      I wish that were true. We have both x-ray scanners and stupid TSA video playing in a loop telling us all about how ionizing radiation is "safe" when at the admitted levels real people are being killed by these things assuming the linear hypothesis is correct..but this information is missing from the loop.

    3. Re:Misleading headline by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why do you say they are equally invasive? The laws of physics would seem to indicate that they are not. The few images I have seen have been much less detailed than the xray images which are nearly as good as black and white photographs.

      Removing the private wank booths is by itself a huge step forward (assuming they really do get rid of them) and the cartoonish stick figure images on the machines with the newer software would seem to eliminate the privacy issue completely. Assuming of course that the TSA is not lying again and secretly continues to monitor the images in the peep/wank booth.

      The millimeter waves are a huge improvement. No ionizing radiation. Based on our current understanding the 27-30 Ghz microwaves are not harmful.

      The millimeter wave images are orders of magnitude less suggestive and detailed than the x-ray machine images. They don't appear to be wank material. Many of the millimeter wave scanners in the US are fitted with automatic detection software which effectively illiminates the privacy issue anyway.

      The mmw machines with ATD software still have problems however. Based on independent testing they have something like a 50% false positive rate and if the machine alarms you must submit to a potentially sexually invasive procedure in order to fly. If they were to eliminate either the after-scan patdown or the false positives the scanners might be acceptable except for the fact that they don't really achieve anything. Metal detectors are far more effective at detecting real threats, much faster, and do not require any genital patdowns afterward.

      The sensible thing to do is to go back to the metal detectors and maybe augment them with explosive sniffing dogs until reliable explosive detection machines are invented.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    4. Re: Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explosive dogs? Wouldn't that be dangerous?

    5. Re:Misleading headline by Xest · · Score: 2

      "The millimeter waves are a huge improvement. No ionizing radiation. Based on our current understanding the 27-30 Ghz microwaves are not harmful."

      A UK report into them said there may be a slight risk of 1 in 100,000 chance of causing cancer which is okay because that means we're only giving 2 people passing through Heathrow each day cancer to save 0.0002 people per day from air transport related terrorism.

    6. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the cartoonish stick figure images on the machines with the newer software would seem to eliminate the privacy issue completely

      that is a joke right? only because the software shows a cartoon does not mean that your nude picture is stored and processed and maybe even transfered without your consent. i don't care how nice the machine represents a nude image, they are not taking one of me under any circumstance, period

  3. Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The scanners are still there. They still get the digital data of a virtual nude. They just pass that through an algorithm that replaces the image with a stick figure before the image is shown to the operator.

    The government still gets the detailed biometric identifying information it wants, the digital 3d model of your nude body still gets stored in the databases they deny exist. They just don't show it to the operator now, so everyone feels better.

    1. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The government still gets the detailed biometric identifying information it wants, the digital 3d model of your nude body still gets stored in the databases they deny exist. They just don't show it to the operator now, so everyone feels better.

      I never understood why people just go through these scanners like sheep. I have never been through one despite flying periodically -- one can and should decline the scan.

    2. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I never understood why people continue to fly. There might as well be a sign up at the entrance to the airport that says "you must be 'this' subservient to authority to ride" then maybe have the arrow point to this picture https://minkwords.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/subservient1.jpg

    3. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two reasons:
      extra delay
      the punishment grope, err pat down.

    4. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by petsounds · · Score: 4, Informative

      I never understood why people just go through these scanners like sheep. I have never been through one despite flying periodically -- one can and should decline the scan.

      In the USA, yes you can decline and instead get sexually groped by a TSA employee. In other countries like the UK you can't decline -- if you want to get on your flight, you go through the scanner.

    5. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the enhanced pat down is worse.

    6. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the UK even has its own version of the TSA...

    7. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Jockle · · Score: 2

      But it also wastes more of their time, which is the point. Although I'd rather people not fly at all, if they must fly, I'd rather they take the pat downs.

    8. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we have places to go. Trains take longer, are more uncomfortable, go less places, and cost just as much, if not more. While driving (alone) might be a little cheaper than the train/plane, it isn't any better. It's just as tiring, just as uncomfortable, well, worse even. Plus, you can't drink. Also, some of us can't drive, or won't drive. If you want to cross the ocean without flying, that's even worse. With planes, I can wake up in one city, fly to another city 1000 miles away, and still make it to work that same day.

      Who's the subservient one? Without flying, you are mostly stuck in one place. If you go anywhere, you must waste extra vacation days to do it. How many friends have you lost? How much family have you lost? How many weddings did you miss? Flying means I can, when I really want to, decide it's worth it, go anywhere I want. I'm not a slave to where I happen to live. I like small vacations, efficient use of vacation time. Take off Friday and Monday off, you get a 4 day vacation for just 2 days vacation time. Why go on one trip a year, when I can go on 6? You can't do that without flying.

      Also, sometimes the flights are free. Combine frequent flier miles from credit cards and stuff, with miles earned from actually flying, and you can earn a free roundtip now and then, maybe even once a year or more.

    9. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, the biggest police state in the world has ridiculous airport security, just like us.

    10. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They'll be on the bus soon enough. What's your argument going to be then?

    11. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by murdocj · · Score: 1

      I go thru them because it's fast, easy, and other than paranoid speculation has no detrimental effects. I suppose I could opt for some sort of invasive pat-down but I'm really not looking for that sort of thing.

    12. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by tftp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people

      It appears to be the mainstream opinion in the UK, judging by the fact that the Prime Minister still has the office.

      I wonder, is there anything that the UK population will not submit to, if submission saves the life of one abstract child?

    13. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Jockle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people in one easy stroke because the voices in their head told them to, and the only thing between that latent human homicidal psychosis and my safety is a porno machine, what do I care how many 3d pictures of my cock I have to give up?

      That's not a very good devil's advocate because it is easily debunked. Rights are far more important than safety, and you could use that same argument to justify molesting people at random, regardless of their location. If one nut is stopped, who cares about silly old rights!?

      That is extremely dangerous thinking, but I fear that most people truly believe such nonsense.

    14. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by fatalwall · · Score: 1

      Also allows you to make the TSA agent feel uncomfortable. But you must be very careful how you do this as TSA agents have unchecked powers.

    15. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by fatalwall · · Score: 1

      Yes but you know the pro's and cons of being sexually assaulted. Cant say the same for the machines that they wont run proper tests on and wont take public comment on even after court orders. Also it can be fun to make the guy patting you down mildly uncomfortable.

    16. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Um... I don't get your devil;s advocate stance only because... your statement assumes it was proven to be the case - that it saves lives - and even so, just because IT MAY - IF PROVEN - doesn't mean it's the only method, or that it should be automatically supported if less intrusive methods that are equally effective are present. TL;DR: This stance is pure logic fail.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    17. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Just do what a few people did when these machines were new. Decline the machine, accept the pat down/grope, strip to your underwear, and let them have a feel.

      If every person did this, the shit would stop after about 3 days. Because everyone would be late for flights, and Leno would have the time of his life cracking jokes about it and showing how silly the whole charade is.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    18. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people in one easy stroke because the voices in their head told them to, and the only thing between that latent human homicidal psychosis and my safety is a porno machine, what do I care how many 3d pictures of my cock I have to give up?

      Fantastic reasoning! We should apply it to school shootings too. I hereby humbly accept the unsavory but vital responsibility of strip searching and patting down the genitals of middle schoolers at the local school's checkpoint every day. Because if I strip search enough of them, I'm bound to find one with a gun, right? And then it's all legit and worth it and I'm a hero!

    19. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by commandermonkey · · Score: 2

      Depends on where you are. Flying though Amsterdam there was no opt-out; even for the preggers wife.

      Even in the US you an face absurd pressure from the TSA to go through the machine. I have had to wait 15 min+ on an opt-out(causing a run through ORD barefooted to make the flight); insinuations/outright declarations that I must be a "funny man" to want another man touching his "junk" and I must be some sort of queer(the TSA screeners words, not mine; this was ATL); all the opt out point are right next to the input of the X-Ray bag scanner leading a TSA agent(I think at SFO) to tell me that i was exposed to far more radiation waiting here then going through the scanner.

      (TL;DR) It's easy to say you opt-out, but it's not alwsy an option and there is still tremendous pressure for you to go though the security theater.

    20. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      In other countries like the UK you can't decline -- if you want to get on your flight, you go through the scanner.

      And then you get the pat-down anyway. The metal detectors at Heathrow are far more sensitive than the metal detectors at US airports.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    21. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people in one easy stroke

      It doesn't. Never has, never will, never can.

    22. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people in one easy stroke because the voices in their head told them to, and the only thing between that latent human homicidal psychosis and my safety is a porno machine, what do I care how many 3d pictures of my cock I have to give up?

      While we are doing that, let's put cameras in all the cars everywhere, and enable the authorities to stop the vehicle wherever and whenever they please. That will save lives! As will putting a telescreen everywhere and monitoring everything -- it might just stop a psycho from killing another human being! Let's put everybody in their own cell, or lobotomize everyone so that they can't harm each other... because saving lives(tm) through limiting freedom is the best thing and has always worked.

      You see, the whole problem with security measures is that "bad" humans flock to authority and power like moths to a flame, only they don't die when they get to it (which is a shame). Take away privileges from the police and give them to the citizens? More gangs and criminals abusing freedoms awarded to them. Give more privilages to the police? They will abuse it, and You'll get more bent cops. Make a special task force to monitor the police actions? Guess where the mafia will try to put their people first... quis custodiet ipsos custodes, eh?

    23. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by kwbauer · · Score: 1, Troll

      Which is exactly the point liberals make quite frequently. We must give up our lifestyle of moving from place to place if we are to save the earth. Making air-travel a royal pain is just one step along that path.

    24. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Wow, I've been waiting to see someone from the UK have the balls to call the Muslim terrorists nutters. After all, it has been quite awhile since the commie groups were doing hijackings.

    25. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't expect anything else from people who get their daily dose of excrement from the sun and daily mail.

    26. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 ...

      Ahhh! That's why New York police stop and search random passers-by. Maybe they should go back to the public strip searches of the 1970s. Strange that all suspects are black or homosexual men.

      ... filled with fragile meat cargo ...

      Any structure with a few hundred people and limited egress is a yielding target. 1100 people didn't die in Bangladesh by happenstance. They were in a life-threatening situation in a condemned building. A month earlier a fire in the same city killed a 100 people because the emergency doors were locked. Airports have the same problem. No-one admits it but a plane will burn to the ground in the time it takes to evacuate half the passengers.

      ... aggressors with limited resources ...

      The 9/11 disaster didn't use a lot of resources: A few flying lessons and some box-cutters. As slashdot readers have noted, most households have enough chemicals and tools lying around to build an explosive device.

    27. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment is deliberately misleading. I have flown into and out of the UK many times and never had to pass through an imaging scanner.

      You do have to go through the old fashioned metal detectors which simply return binary "metal is present, true/false" but those are much, much less of a privacy concern. They don't produce naked images of you, like the ones being discussed here. Only your hand luggage goes through an imaging scanner.

    28. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is blatantly partisan garbage routinely positively modded as 'interesting' around here?

    29. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people

      It appears to be the mainstream opinion in the UK, judging by the fact that the Prime Minister still has the office.

      That isn't the mainstream opinion in just the UK either. It seems a lot of people feel if there is even the REMOTEST change that it may save one life... Never mind the fact that there is no evidence it has or can possibly save a life...

    30. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by mysidia · · Score: 1

      As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people

      Is it worse to have no scanners and risk that 200 people might be killed by a delusion nutter; OR to have the scanners, and with high probability, shave several years off the life of 1 million+ people?

    31. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a USian, I'd like to respond.

      My country was born when a group of doctors, lawyers, and farmers came to realization that the slim chance of gaining liberty was worth taking up arms against the most powerful military the world had ever seen. They didn't come to that realization in secret; they signed and publicly posted an open letter of treason against the Crown, who controlled the world's most powerful military, and who would have gladly put each of them to death for their treasonous act. They then proceeded to fight not one, but two wars against the world's most powerful military to secure the rights they believed all people were entitled to enjoy. They were not seasoned soldiers or military strategists who knew how to fight the armies of the Crown; they were doctors, lawyers, and farmers who were almost certainly about to die in a completely futile effort. One of the states that arose during this period adopted the motto "Live free or die".

      In the spirit of their realization and their actions, please allow me to be the first to say: Fuck your safety. Being free isn't safe. Safety is never, never worth the cost of losing freedom.

      I quite honestly wish that all the people who think as you do would go back to England. I think it'd return this country to a much better state; one where we still had balls and did great things.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    32. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

      They've already been on the bus.

    33. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Nothing is a waste of the TSA's time. They're there and getting paid whether they are scanning, groping, or doing a crossword puzzle between flights.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    34. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by jcr · · Score: 1

      if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people

      The problem with your argument is that it does no such thing. If some delusional nutter wants to cause bloody mayhem, there's no better target than the hundreds of people in a serpentine queue waiting to go through the porno scanners. Any of the bombs the IRA used to attack London back in the late 1970s could easily fit into one of today's roll-away suitcases.

      The pornoscanner's entire purpose is to force ritual obedience displays from the traveling public.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    35. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by jcr · · Score: 1

      insinuations/outright declarations that I must be a "funny man" to want another man touching his "junk" and I must be some sort of queer(the TSA screeners words, not mine; this was ATL

      Hope you got the perp's name. You can get a bureaucrat in a fair bit of trouble if they do something as un-PC as making homophobic remarks.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    36. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If enough people did that, it could seriously hold up the line.

    37. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people in one easy stroke because the voices in their head told them to, and the only thing between that latent human homicidal psychosis and my safety is a porno machine, what do I care how many 3d pictures of my cock I have to give up?

      Because Subways Exist.

    38. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by sjames · · Score: 2

      But so far, it hasn't. Other passengers have stopped a delusional nutter on a few occasions AFTER airport security missed them.

      If you want to hire someone to frisk you at the airport, be my guest, but leave the rest of us out of it.

    39. Re:Misleading summary, as usual by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      As a UKian, I would like to play devils advocate: if it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering upwards of 200 people

      It appears to be the mainstream opinion in the UK, judging by the fact that the Prime Minister still has the office.

      That isn't the mainstream opinion in just the UK either. It seems a lot of people feel if there is even the REMOTEST change that it may save one life... Never mind the fact that there is no evidence it has or can possibly save a life...

      You know what would for sure save many lives? Lock everyone up in a secure padded cell. All your work, entertainment, sustenance, in fact you whole life will take place in that one cell. Interaction with others will occur through video screen. "If it stops one single delusional nutter from murdering. . ." Well that would for sure stop at least one murder so they must be all for it then, huh?

      That's the problem with the delusional safety freaks. No amount of logic will get them to see how stupid they are being. If they actually wanted safety over anything else they would be all for this plan. If we had a Matrix world they could live in I bet we would have many people like Cypher that would love to be plugged into it. Give them their simulated steaks and they will be happy in their false world. It's what they really want.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  4. All part of the plan by schwit1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Security industrial complex got its billions and then guess what, it seems the machines have a problem. Ok, we'll buy the version 2 at only twice the price. A few years later ... what? They don't detect the latest terrorist explosives? Hey, we've just come out with version 3 and have we got a deal for you.

    All the while the retiring senior TSA folks are getting job offers from the security industry to lobby and sell on these same government contracts.

    1. Re:All part of the plan by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      A few years later ... what? They don't detect the latest terrorist explosives? Hey, we've just come out with version 3 and have we got a deal for you.

      If only they didn't detect "latest explosives" -- that would be understandable. It had been demonstrated many times that they don't detect shit.

      I understand that these are government contractors, but still, shouldn't they pay the money back on every device that cannot detect 99%+ of dangerous items? Because I think that is all of them so far.

    2. Re:All part of the plan by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      If only they didn't detect "latest explosives" -- that would be understandable. It had been demonstrated many times that they don't detect shit.

      To be fair, detecting shit wouldn't really help, what with everyone being -- literally -- full of it.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:All part of the plan by bunhed · · Score: 1

      Man I wish I had some upvotes

    4. Re:All part of the plan by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know how big your colon is, but I'm only retaining a little bit of shit at the moment.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  5. Waste of money by wakeboarder · · Score: 2

    I just love to hear my tax dollars being put to good use! (And by good use I mean a HUGE inconvenience\privacy invasion, the TSA is government at its finest)

    1. Re:Waste of money by NormAtHome · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whoever approved this incredible waste of taxpayer money really needs to loose their job along with half of Congress.

    2. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as how money was spent on this rather than on things that may have actually saved lives (healthcare), I'll let you guess what I think they should lose other than their jobs.

    3. Re:Waste of money by Virtucon · · Score: 1, Interesting

      half? all.

      The DHS needs to go, the TSA needs to go along with it as well as the other bloat in the government.

      As of 3/2001 there were 2,697,602 employees in the Federal Government (682K National Defense/Relations) with a monthly payroll of $11.4B/month.
      As of 3/2011 (latest month available) there were 2,854,251 federal employees not including 192,845 in the DHS (including Coast Guard/TSA etc.) For a total of 3,047,096 with a monthly payroll of $17.2B/month. That's a 13% increase in personnel and a payroll increase of 50% in 10 years despite having gone through the worst recession in memory. I'm trying to think if my income has gone up 50% in the last 10 years. Wait, no, it hasn't I'm sure of it.

      True, if I looked at all of those engineers and technicians layed-off at NASA because of the Shuttle shutdown these numbers would be a little less but still it's mind boggling how big the bureacracy has grown. A lot of that was under Bush but a lot was under Obama as well. I won't get into their productive value on the economy but in order to solve the problems we have with government bloat is to vote out all members of congress over the next three election cycles. Why? It's the only way to clean house and get some new people in there who don't behold to old party alliances and financial backers who push legislation through the side door. After all, the president has no spending authority, it comes from congress. The president can move funds around once he has them, but the checkbook is in the hands of guys like this. or this, or this. Frankly, I could point to any member of congress and see that their self-indulgent morons who have one goal: to maintain power and get re-elected and fuck the rest of the people in the country.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re: Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

      Seems to disagree with your count of Federal employees.

    5. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to learn the difference between "loose" and "lose".

    6. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever approved this incredible waste of taxpayer money really needs to loose their job along with half of Congress.

      Whoever approved this incredible waste of taxpayer money really needs to loose their job along with half of Congress.

      Learn how fucking spell lose!

    7. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to learn how to form complete sentences.

    8. Re:Waste of money by spongman · · Score: 1

      What, the ones whose campaigns are funded by millimeter-wave scanner manufacturers?

    9. Re:Waste of money by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm trying to think if my income has gone up 50% in the last 10 years.

      Maybe if we hadn't been duped into throwing the unions under the bus you might have had an organization negotiating on your behalf to get regular raises to reflect your increased productivity. Also it's not 50% since the number of employees increased too. It's more like 40% increase in wages assuming your numbers are correct. That means they got about a 3.5% raise every year. That's exactly in line with the private sector which also was projected to see on average about a 3.5% raise.

    10. Re:Waste of money by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your analysis contains some very important oversights:

      Your numbers are taken from the US Census Bureau: 2001 & 2011.

      First, let's look at the difference between 2003 & 2004, so that we can see the addition of the Department of Homeland Security. See how the total number of full time employees stays roughly the same, but the 2004 numbers have that extra section for the DHS with ~140k full time employees? Those people weren't all hired that year -- the DHS employees are already in the grand total on the top line. You were double counting them in your 2011 numbers. So let's revise your numbers to account for that:
      2001: 2.7M employees with a payroll of $11.4B
      2011: 2.85M employees with a payroll of $16.1B

      That's a 6% increase in headcount, and a 41% increase in payroll. Still pretty big, right? Well, we ought to adjust for inflation. Looks like the $16.1B would have been worth $12.7B in 2001.

      So really, we're looking at a 6% increase in headcount, and an 11% increase in inflation-adjusted payroll. It's not nothing, but it's not what you're making it out to be.

      Let's go into even more detail!

      By pulling up the 2008 numbers, we can see which parts are attributable to Bush, and which are attributable to Obama. Since Bush has more years of growth, we'll annualize the results.

      (I did this in Excel, and you're free to download the tables from the Census website and repeat my calculations. I'm tired of making hyperlinks.)

      Under Bush, the Federal Government grew at an average of 4.5% per year, with the largest contributors being National Defense, Healthcare and Law Enforcement. Under Obama, the Federal Government grew at an average of 1.4% per year, with the largest contributors being Healthcare and the Postal Service (which didn't grow much percentage-wise, but its sheer size meant that even a few percentage points put it over the top). Remember, we're talking about payroll here, so Social Security & Medicare aren't nearly as big.

      So under Obama, the government payroll has actually been shrinking in inflation adjusted dollars. And remember, this is pre-sequester. Of course, that doesn't mean all of the cuts were Obama's idea, or all of the heavy spending was Bush's. But it does show that over the past several years, the government has been trimming the fat. Your "throw the bums out" approach is unwarranted.

    11. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... vote out all members of congress ...

      And where are the new members coming from? Where is the money for their election campaign coming from? This a 'turtles all the way down' scenario, which is why many successful revolutions involve killing all of the ruling class and some of the middle class.

      ... who don't behold to old party alliances ...

      It's not working in Iraq. The minority ethnics want to hold 90% of the government again. They're car-bombing cities to a stand-still because now that government is based on popularity, the minority ethnics have nothing.

    12. Re:Waste of money by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Great info! You do bring up a good point though that I had forgotten, there are very few industries that adjust for inflation and Fed jobs are one of those. I doubt though seriously that most of that increase can be attributed to that especially since most of us out here in the private world don't get those kinds of perks.
      Also the 2011 numbers are broken out so I didn't double count as Coast Guard etc. were in the 2001 numbers and you're right I didn't go in the middle, it's a 10 year comparison of what the war on terror and the direct employment costs are. Even if you adjust for inflation, these folks have a sweet gig with benefits.

      Oh and the idea for the Sequester came from Obama's camp:

      Exhibit A is Bob Woodward’s book, “The Price of Politics,” which describes how top aides to President Obama brought the idea to Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada in the summer of 2011, when Congress was grappling with the debt ceiling.

      He cut his own throat.

      and we need to still throw all of those idiots in congress out either directly by the ballot box or by term limits.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    13. Re:Waste of money by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      The unions threw themselves under the bus. The backlash is a direct result of the corruption among many union administrations as well as the exorbetent demands among the larger unions that have/had strangleholds on their industries such as the UAW, ILA, and ILWU, and teacher's unions. The bigger ones grow to the point where they cannibalize their industry by using cartel-like labor monopoly manipulation. They can prevent any sort of technological advancement and preserve 1970's style list-checking jobs and data-entry jobs because they're the only guy in town, and if you go somewhere else, they'll put you out of business by striking at all your locations.

      This is the perception the middle class white collar gets when having to work with unions, and its pretty close to accurate. Deal with the problems the 'union monopoly' and the effective and trustworthy union will return. Not until then will it happen.

  6. profiling is needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and just make profiling part of the ticket purchase agreement

    1. Re:profiling is needed by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      and just make profiling part of the ticket purchase agreement

      Do go on. We'd love to hear your brilliant plan. No, really.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:profiling is needed by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      Why are you posting anonymously? What do you have to hide? That's terribly suspicious behavior. Expect one of our friendly and understanding agents to stop and search you on a regular basis from here on out, just to be sure.

  7. Claim: Verified by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Critics called this an invasion of privacy and questioned whether the scanning devices truly lacked the ability to save the images, as the TSA claimed."

    It has always had the ability to save such images; The TSA merely claimed that such a 'diagnostic mode' was not available during normal operation. There is no way for you, the passenger, to know if and when it is in such a diagnostic mode, however. So the TSA's claim is technically true.

    But since the radiation levels have also not been published, it's also technically true that the radiation levels are safe, in spite of those cancer clusters showing up, because the TSA says they're safe and therefore there is no need to publish the emission limits.

    In other words... all you have to go on is their word in both cases. Which, given as many times as their statements haven't been found to be credible, is no assurance at all.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Claim: Verified by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      These machines not only provide, supposedly, security for our air travelers but they also provide fun and entertainment
      for the TSA employees as well.

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/tsa-worker-arrested-jokes-fight-size-genitalia/

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-body-scanned-times-tsa-dallas-airport-cute-figure-article-1.1022803

      http://www.infowars.com/ex-tsa-screener-officers-laughing-at-your-naked-image/

      We all knew this kind of stuff would happen and it has and let's not forget the guy who really pushed these forward
      was at one time in charge of the DHS, Chertoff, represented rapidscan... http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam

      This whole excercise will be looked back upon with two possible outcomes: Rational beings will once again govern and they'll be looked upon as an assault on civil liberties or The status quo will be maintained into the future and you won't be able to go anywhere, be online and transact any business anywhere without at least 20 or thirty government snoops tracking your every movement. Frankly the way things are going, the latter is probably the outcome we'll all be living with shortly.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  8. Its a zero-sum game by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 2

    We are neither safer nor more at risk with these machines gone. As long as we're limited to 1-1/2oz shampoo bottles, we know TSA is on the job.

    1. Re:Its a zero-sum game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least get the size limit correct. It's 3.4 fluid ounces, also known at 100mL.

    2. Re:Its a zero-sum game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many planes have been hijacked by machine guns, anyways? Actually, come to think of it, how many have been hijacked by bombs?

    3. Re:Its a zero-sum game by crakbone · · Score: 1

      how many have been stopped by TSA compared to people on the plane. From what I have seen and read the majority of plane endangerments in the last 10 years was stopped by passengers. From explosive shoes to crazed pilots.

    4. Re:Its a zero-sum game by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. Nothing more needs to be sad - the way you ignore what is being said and create statements that couldn't reasonably be implied says it all.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    5. Re:Its a zero-sum game by murdocj · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot.

      Nothing more needs to be sad - the way you ignore what is being said and create statements that couldn't reasonably be implied says it all.

      Really? Then explain to me why you'd like your plane to be hijacked / destroyed. That's the choice... you can either check people out, or you can lose a plane every now and again. There isn't any option 3.

  9. Oh really by meerling · · Score: 2

    Can't save images? Then how is it that they have found TSA personnel with collections of images from the machine, not to mention the ones printed out and posted in the breakroom? Subjects were apparently females with better than average anatomical traits of course.

    At least they recently fired the one caught masturbating to the screens while on monitor duty.

    1. Re:Oh really by d33tah · · Score: 1

      Do you have any sources on these revelations?

  10. Better name: Radiation Scanners by steveha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't care that much about the "Virtual Nude" thing. (Although I might care more if I were an attractive young female, I guess.)

    My objection to the thing is the X-ray radiation. I am by no means convinced these things are safe.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-glossed-over-cancer-concerns

    Four doctors from the University of California, San Francisco wrote an open letter expressing their grave concerns based on their expertise. They listed dangers of these scanners and requested to see the safety studies and get access to the raw data of the safety studies; they also asked for the names of the people who conducted the safety studies. The government's answer boiled down to "our experts have studied this and it's safe". Completely non-responsive to the listed concerns and not sharing any data.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083

    So I never yet have let them scan me; I always have requested the pat-down. When they ask if I would prefer it in private, I tell them no. I'd rather the patdown be out in the open where anyone could watch. I have no particular reason to think any TSA agent would give me extra trouble in private, but I'd prefer as much publicity as possible.

    I guess millimeter wave isn't ionizing radiation? That's a giant improvement right there. Maybe the new machines are safe? Safer, anyway.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Better name: Radiation Scanners by steveha · · Score: 2

      Hmm. Wikipedia says that the government did answer the open letter:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effects

      Here's the citation:

      http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm

      I still want to minimize my exposure to ionizing radiation.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    2. Re:Better name: Radiation Scanners by loneDreamer · · Score: 1

      Cheers! I do exactly the same, wish more people did... ok, being wishfully thinking already, I really wish the TSA wouldn't exist.

    3. Re:Better name: Radiation Scanners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My objection to the thing is the X-ray radiation.

      Your objection should be that it exists to allow the government to violate people's constitutional rights, which is a far more important matter than any health concern.

      We need to scrap the TSA completely; it's an evil organization that is only capable of violating people's rights and privacy.

    4. Re:Better name: Radiation Scanners by GoChickenFat · · Score: 3, Interesting
      My last trip to the airport the pilot and crew were allowed just in front of me. There was only one open lane and it was for the body scanner. When the crew showed up they opened the old magnetic line so I tried to join right behind them (btw, the body scanner line was completely open with no one waiting). The TSA agent said "you can go over to the other line". I said no I don't want to go through the body scanner. He said why not and I simply said I don't want to. He asked again why not. I said well if it was safe why isn't the crew going through it (I got a couple funny smiles back from the crew). He said why are you asking so many questions and then added if I go through I'd get an extra pat down. At that point I just kept following the crew through and he didn't stop me. I did get just my legs checked by another TSA agent - no big deal.

      The other thing I've noticed is if you travel with young children they take you out of line and directly to the magnetic scanner. Not just your child and one parent but your entire family. For me it was four adult family members along with my 4yr old - no extra pat down needed.

      in summary - the body scanners cannot be completely safe and they know it.

    5. Re:Better name: Radiation Scanners by Solandri · · Score: 1

      My objection to the thing is the X-ray radiation. I am by no means convinced these things are safe.

      That's a good argument against these for terrestrial applications, but not at the airport. Your increased ionizing radiation exposure from the flight is roughly two orders of magnitude higher than from the scanners. So complaining about radiation from the scanners makes you come across as either ignorant (didn't know about radiation from flying), or hypocritical (upset about a small dose from the scanners, while accepting of a much larger dose from the flight).

      Stick with the privacy and unreasonable search arguments.

    6. Re:Better name: Radiation Scanners by mha · · Score: 1

      This is about the SCREENERS much more than about the passengers. You forgot those guys who are next to those machines all work-day long. See other articles with links right here about this very topic.

    7. Re:Better name: Radiation Scanners by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      I don't care that much about the "Virtual Nude" thing.

      My objection to the thing is the X-ray radiation.

      I don't care much about the radiation thing. I care about the affront to our liberty and the insult to our intelligence, not to mention the waste of time and money.

    8. Re:Better name: Radiation Scanners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assumes you buy into the TSA's "trust us it's safe". However, without more public transparency there is no way to know that the devices have undergone enough testing to ensure that another "Therac 25"-like incident doesn't occur (i.e., safe under normal operation but occasionally deadly when an obscure bug is triggered). With these sorts of devices, they have to be assumed unsafe until proven otherwise.

  11. I've never understood the fuss.... by MrBovineOrdure · · Score: 1

    If some perv wants to go blind looking at a blue-man-group version of my naked body, fine! I never understood this. I guess the only way to accept this is if we see a skeletal structure that sees weapons ala Total Recall. Can't imagine doing this without a great deal of radiation though.....

    1. Re:I've never understood the fuss.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      give more consideration to other's feelings. would your mother like this? your grandmother? your sister?

    2. Re:I've never understood the fuss.... by MrBovineOrdure · · Score: 1

      Mom's been dead for 4 years. Grandma for 33 years. My sister & brother likely would take an adult view. (I suspect the same would hold with Mom, Dad, and grandma, though Windows 95 would have been beyond their ken.) If someone told you a web address of a picture of a prurient nature of someone you know, would you go to that address? Would you say no, secretly go there and publicly say you didn't (and take umbrage at the very thought?) Just not bother to look, or see and just move on with your life? No, nudity doesn't bother me. Its the way you came into the world, Endured by family members until you're about 1 1/2 then only sanctioned by serious movies like Schindler's list. (Where all those depicted to be forced to march naked were pasty unattractive white folks in black & white so it would be OK for broadcast over the public airwaves.) The pictures that those things take aren't exactly HD color. A publicly released image of those machines would be no more meaningful and prurient than a Photoshopped picture of your loved one's head on someone else's body. (Unless that actually WAS a gun in his pocket and he wasn't just glad to see you.)

    3. Re:I've never understood the fuss.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not want to see!

    4. Re:I've never understood the fuss.... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      But we're not talking of your views or my views, we're talking about how your dear departed mom or grandmother would have felt about such thing and it's not about "an adult view", it's about them (if they are like majority of women in USA) likely having similar feeling in their mind as some stranger walking up to them and ripping their clothes off would give. It's about them feeling violated and humiliated.

    5. Re:I've never understood the fuss.... by MrBovineOrdure · · Score: 1

      Now your employing hyperbole. You are equating a blue image with a small chance of getting out with a physical assault. No one is touching you when the image is taken. Your property (Your clothes) are not being damaged. And the only person in this world who can permit the feeling of humiliation is YOU!

  12. What about the images they already took? by ntw1103 · · Score: 1

    There is still the problem of all the images they already took. Those images are probably stored on a server somewhere. Now is not the time to rejoice, the job isn't finished yet. We, the people, need to demand the destruction of those images.

  13. Where did the machines go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They removed all of these nude scanners from the Airports. Where did they go? Does anyone really believe the government would just discard all of this expensive security theatre hardware they've already paid for?

    Hardly.

    http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/tsa-admits-plotting-nude-body-scanners-for-rail-bus-refuses-environmental-impact-study/

    1. Re:Where did the machines go? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Actually they will throw them away. Chertoff's company already made money on the scanners, which is the only reason they were ever purchased to begin with. Therefore, the scanners have already served their useful purpose and the government will now gladly scrap them. After all, its only tax money they wasted. They don't care.

  14. What? by Zynder · · Score: 1

    Cancer clusters showing up? This is the first I have heard of this. Do you have an article I can read? I'd love to know more!

    1. Re:What? by steve6534 · · Score: 3, Informative
    2. Re:What? by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Hey thanks for the reply. I didn't know what to make of the original claim, but after reading that link, I have mixed feelings. I thought she was referring to passengers who were scanned but that didn't make sense. The cancer clusters are from the agents working the machines. Like many folks on here I hate the TSA and power hungry cops. So since it is they who are getting cancer I find myself torn between caring, since they are people, and eerily satisfied that karma is working as it should. I mean the types of people who take those jobs aren't the greatest people in the first place. We would be better off with a few less sociopaths.

  15. which machines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are these the X-ray machines that Chertoff was supposed to have made so much money on. (Yeah, I know, preposition...)

  16. Thankful by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

    I am just thankful that most of my air travel is NOT in the US! Security checks in other places can be onerous, too, but rarely as bad as when in the US. But security practices used worldwide are mostly at the behest of the TSA.

  17. Enemy Combatants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The employees of the Department of Homeland Security [a euphoric term] are by definition Enemy Combatants using the language of Obama's secret Executive Order Directives.

    Enemy Combatants can be killed on sight at will by the lawful citizens of the United States of America and Its Territories so long as the killing occurs within the United States of America and Its Territories.

  18. It's not ionizing by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    mmW is very low frequency, relatively speaking. Remember visible light is in the 750-380nm range and it is (obviously) non-ionizing. mmW, also called terahertz radiation, since that's the range it is in, is obviously much lower frequency. It is below infrared, but above microwave.

    As such it is non-ionizing, and there is no reason to believe that it could cause any damage, other than thermal damage, and then only if done in large quantities in a short time. There was a paper that claimed it could "unzip" the DNA double helix, however it was based on a simulation, without experimental verification and later analysis has concluded this won't happen at the temperatures in the body.

    The reason why it wasn't widely deployed to begin with is, as it often is, nepotism. Rapidiscan makes the X-ray scanners, L3 makes the mmW ones. Michael Chertoff, the homeland secretary at the time, had ties to Rapidiscan.

  19. Probably the REAL reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There were several reports of cancer clusters in the operators of the machines - the people who stand right beside a scattering x-ray day in and day out. X-rays are waves, and they bounce, but there is no shielding on the entrance and exit. So if you stand beside them, you are bound to get SOME xrays each time. Anyway, many people think they were shut down because the cancer clusters became so obvious that it would be hard to deny the relationship. They prevented more risk by switching to terahertz, where they get similar results but without the x-rays.

    http://www.infowars.com/cancer-surges-in-body-scanner-operators-tsa-launches-cover-up/

    (yes, I know infowars has a mixed reputation, but it has supporting links)

  20. me love you long time mistah charly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was a lot of cameltoe!

  21. Underpaid. by Snufu · · Score: 1

    Have you seen the travelers in the security check line? If I was a screener I would demand a machine that makes people seem MORE clothed.

  22. Sad story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that since 9/11, the terrorists have won and rule America. And I'm not talking about Bush's home boys from the Bin Laden family.

  23. I'm still going to opt out. by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pat me down.

    Had the fellow at the airport literally grab my penis last time. So yeah... that was uncomfortable. But that is how you ACTUALLY drives these machines out of the airport. Refuse to use them.

    When the TSA finds that pat downs are not effective at forcing people into the scanners they'll let us walk through a metal detector and leave us alone.

    Its not as if the xray machines have ever stopped a terrorist attack or likely ever will.

    Do you know how you stop a terrorist attack? Know who is getting on the f'ing airplane. Its not that complicated. All the people that have later gone on to do some terrorist attack were on a terrorist watch list already.

    Is it fair to profile someone WHO IS ALREADY on a terrorist watch list? That is, if you're on a terrorist watch list... would it be fair to pat YOU down or scan you you or whatever? Again, not simply because of race, national origin, or anything equally specious. But contacts and behavior consistent with someone plotting a terrorist attack.

    And if someone is clever enough to stay off those lists while also intending a terrorist attack... do you really think an xray machine is going to stop them? Xray machines would stop a moron that would jam explosives up his sleeves without understanding how an xray machine works. You might claim it would deter a smarter attacker but really all you've done is force him to disguise the weapon or bomb as something else.

    In the end, you're pitting the intelligence of someone clever enough to stay off the watch lists against a minimum wage government drone bored off his ass while he scans yet another person that he has no belief is a threat.

    When you treat EVERYONE as a threat you threat NO ONE as a threat. You have to have targeted security. Enough passive security to deter morons and really a metal detector is more then sufficient to do that. And then the FBI and CIA need to keep useful lists for the few clever ones that might try something sneaky. And when one of the sneaky ones books a plane flight... they spend an extra 10 minutes in back room as someone gropes them for... whatever. Everyone else though... don't waste our time or dull edge of your security by pretending we're a threat when we're not.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by kwbauer · · Score: 2

      Yup, or use the fairly large amount of resources and time they seem to have and get a job working for TSA (or any other airport job) and slide whatever they want past the checkpoints.

    2. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Pat me down.

      Yep, I always opt out...
      Last time through the airport, I opted out. As I stood their waiting, and still on the OTHER side of the machine (I hadn't been let into the secure area yet) their machine jammed or something. So they let the line of people through the metal detector... But because I opted out, I still had to be patted down. Never mind if I had NOT opted out, I would have been sent through the metal detector. So what was the point of these machines again?

    3. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by heteromonomer · · Score: 1

      This. This deserves a +10 mod. I am ok with pat downs. Just make sure they happen in public when everyone is watching. The TSA agents on the groping job that I've met so far were extra polite and careful. Most of the jerks were in the baggage screening. Another thing I never understood is why they do the extra checking of baggage (after they've passed through the X-ray scanner) if I opt for a pat down.

    4. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      When the TSA finds that pat downs are not effective at forcing people into the scanners they'll let us walk through a metal detector and leave us alone.

      More likely, they'll continue to make the pat-down more degrading, invasive, and time consuming to ensure that people go through the machines. Yes sir, you absolutely have the right to not be x-rayed. Just step into that queue over there for the full strip-search. You do have your regulation 3 ounces of vaseline, yes? Current wait time is just under three hours, hope your flight doesn't leave before then. Have a nice day.

      Or they'll just say to hell with the pretense and pass a law out-and-out requiring the use of the machines.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    5. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1
      I had a similar experience. I opted out, and then they noticed the line getting too long -- so they just let people through metal detectors. I was still waiting for my pat-down until I demanded that I be allowed through and accused them of punishing me for exercising my rights.

      My experiences with the TSA's airport security have led me to conclude the following:
      1. They hire the least intelligent people they can find. People who do not ask questions, because they lack the intelligence needed to do so.
      2. They are terrified of any further resentment by the public. They are more concerned about their image than about keeping us safe (but we knew that anyway).
      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I suspect that mass refusal to enter the body scanners would result in the use of metal detectors. The TSA is not going to punish more than a tiny minority of people, because they know that they are unpopular. They know that libertarian politicians want to ax their entire agency. They know that respected researchers like Bruce Schneier have nothing but bad things to say about their approach to security. They know that they are less popular than the IRS. Their actions now are about public relations, trying to keep the amount of negative press to a minimum.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I've never been intentionally delayed by the TSA. They always deal with me pretty quickly. They're sometimes a little too touchy feely about it but its all over pretty fast.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by Skreems · · Score: 1

      I have yet to go through the scanners, but I've never had them treat my bags any different than those that do. Must be a regional or person-by-person thing.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    9. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.... it's no different than invasive DRM in video games, is you point? We all get treated as criminals in order to let us pretend that these measures might stop the few real criminals.

      Unfortunately, the video game issue is similar in another way. if you and all your dumbass friends and families didn't buy a game with restrictive DRM, like some sim games we could mention, it represents such a small insignificant sales percentage that the company wouldn't notice, as most people indeed are sheep, and just buy anyway. Same principal here. you and all your family and crotch-fruit might opt out, but for each of you, hundreds of hundreds of people are passing through the x-ray machines and not thinking twice. you won't change anything.

    10. Re:I'm still going to opt out. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Actually they already blinked on this issue.

      The policy is that when they get too many people opting out they just send more people through the metal detector. No one opts out of the metal detector.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  24. Actually you are partiallywrong: European rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...dictate that everyone has the right to opt-out. However some British airports decided not to allow this, which goes against these European regulations (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/charter_report_2012_en.pdf). It will still require some legal battle of course.

  25. So, Do We Get Our Money Back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since these useless things didn't stop a single potential instance of terrorism, is Chertoff going to give the US taxpayers their money back?

  26. Re:Fucking prudes by crakbone · · Score: 1

    You have no reason to hide anything says the Anonymous Coward.

  27. How many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people know that almost all copy machines have a hard drive that saves copies of all documents copied?

  28. Ever Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why pregnant (or potentially pregnant) women ...and children, are not allowed to go through the new machines?

    If, for whatever reason, they don't want my kids going through the machine...I'll be damned if I'm going.

    (I am an American that makes an international business trip at least twice a quarter and I will never go through those machines. In fact, I request a private screening so they can spare the public my treatment like a criminal. Plus, that takes two TSA agents off "the line" instead of just one....assholes).

  29. Re:Fucking prudes by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

    Hmm, no wonder you posted as an anon. coward, your post is absurdly braindead, and as a result you want to not have to face the backlash for your braindead statements.

    --
    If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
  30. Opting out saves jobs by alegrepublic · · Score: 1

    Every time I opt out, I am subject to TSA employees persuading me to go through the scanner instead. I always tell them: I am just doing what I can to save your job, as soon you will be replaced by the machine.
    They usually do not know how to respond to that, so they shut up.