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."

Comments

Analog hole

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Analog hole

[Jockle]

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

Re:Analog hole

[peragrin]

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.

Re:Analog hole

[iggymanz]

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"

Re:Analog hole

[erroneus]

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?!

Misleading summary, as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Misleading summary, as usual

[tftp]

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?

Re:Misleading summary, as usual

[Jockle]

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.

Re:All part of the plan

[Rob the Bold]

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.

Claim: Verified

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:Waste of money

[artor3]

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.