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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whoever approved this incredible waste of taxpayer money really needs to loose their job along with half of Congress.
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
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
Here you go. It came up about 2 years ago now - http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30/did-airport-scanners-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/
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.
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.
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.