Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners
An anonymous reader writes: Researchers from UC San Diego, University of Michigan, and Johns Hopkins say they've found security vulnerabilities in full-body backscatter X-ray machines deployed to U.S. airports between 2009 and 2013. In lab tests, the researchers were able to conceal firearms and plastic explosive simulants from the Rapiscan Secure 1000 scanner, plus modify the scanner software so it presents an "all-clear" image to the operator even when contraband was detected. "Frankly, we were shocked by what we found," said lead researcher J. Alex Halderman. "A clever attacker can smuggle contraband past the machines using surprisingly low-tech techniques."
Nothing will change most likely.
What if you have an enormous gut? If it hung over your waste/belt line you could probably fit a small weapon in the fold.
They're successful when you consider that the point was to move tax revenue to crony pockets:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Do you have ESP?
"A clever attacker can smuggle contraband past the machines using surprisingly low-tech techniques."
Please, God, Tell me it's tinfoil... plz plz plz plz
I'm not sure voluntarily going on a plane is the government violating your right to privacy.
Well then, what about a government restricting your freedom of movement by forcing you to give up your right to privacy if you desire to travel? I am not saying it is not a nuanced issue — it is, and needs to be debated — but typing a flippant comment as you have done does not end the discussion.
I'm not sure voluntarily living in a certain city is the government violating your right to privacy.
Using this ridiculous, draconian logic of "You voluntarily decided to do X, so you implicitly surrendered right Y to the government." is just stupid. The government has no power to make you implicitly surrender your constitutional liberties merely because you wish to do something. Of course, people who want the government to have unlimited power and to be able to violate your liberties whenever they please would disagree.
At this point nobody's going to be surprised if any device tested has blatant security flaws. The only interesting story would be if someone found a device with no actual flaws. That would be news.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Unfortunately for your position, the courts have always provided interpretation to the Constitution, and many instances of limits on the defined words of the Constitution are found in law.
If you want to get all strict-constructionist on this matter though, planes, cars, buses, and rail didn't even exist when the Constitution was written, so one could argue that there's no Constitutional protection when travelling by anything beyond horseback, carriage, or walking.
Then there's the other side, where airlines were allowed to be in charge of their own security, letting "the market" set the balance, but then nineteen men decided to kill about 3500 men, women, and children one day, and our society realized that it wasn't gonna work to let the airlines be in charge of security.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Yes, it is. The 4th amendment says
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
They are not getting warrants, there is no probable cause unless getting on a plane is probable cause to believe you are going to destroy it. There is no Oath or affirmation and no description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
People do not seem to realize that your rights are given to you by your creator and the constitution only reaffirms that and states that the government can not violate those rights. It does not give you the rights and does not say anything about permission to violate because you enter a store, airport, car, train station, or the bathroom of your own house.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do this, if they wanted it to be Constitutional they could have created an amendment that allowed the acceptation, voted on it, ratified it amongst the states, and then enforced it. Instead they ignored the Constitution, threw the existing law of the land out the window and the government did as they pleased. It is wrong, it is a violation of law, and a violation of the Constitution!
BTW, this would not be an issue or illegal if it was still private security at the airport. The second they put Government Security Agents (TSA) in place it became unconstitutional.
And now I bet I am on the no-fly list for this post. Another unconstitutional action the government takes.
It wasn't a failure of security that caused 9/11, it was a failure of policy. The by the book way to deal with a hijacking was to comply with the terrorists with the idea that they just wanted the passengers and plane for ransom, not to use the plane itself as a weapon. Today the pilots would intentionally crash the plane before they would allow the hijackers control over the aircraft.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Let's look it up....http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since there is no "Right to Travel" listed earlier in the Constitution, it is not explicitly denied here.
Unlike most codes of law in the United States, the Constitution does not generally apply to individual citizens. Rather, the Constitution defines and codifies the Federal government, and is generally accepted to be the limit of Federal and State powers and responsibilities.
Finally, I remember that when I was younger (mind you, this was back in the 1970's), having to provide identification and being subjected to searches before being able to travel was the scope of godless Communists and tinpot dictators.
That we have come to this point is a sad commentary on the United States. That many others not only accept this but actively defend it is even more disappointing.
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
The constitution is not a 'whitelist'!
9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
No, that's just the X-ray scanner malfunctioning.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The government has no power to make you implicitly surrender your constitutional liberties merely because you wish to do something.
It's not implicit, it is pretty explicit. There are signs in every security checkpoint line I've been through that clearly say that by entering this line your person and property are subject to search. I've also seen those signs at the exit of the checkpoint telling people that by being in the secured area they are subject to search. Right or wrong, it isn't implicit.
I don't know about you, but I am not upset that those who "wish to do something", when "something" means "enter a jail or prison to visit a prisoner", are forced to waive their fourth amendment rights in order to do so. Ditto those who want to enter a military facility.
Now, you might have a very strong argument when "something" means "mandatory appearance for jury duty" and you are instructed to put your bags and property through an x-ray machine while passing through a metal detector. You are being ordered under threat of force to appear and then searched when you do.
Yes. That's what he said. He didn't volunteer to go. It was a requirement. I really wish idiots would stop arguing for totalitarianism with stupid son sequiters and a complete lack of understanding of the English language.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Today the pilots would intentionally crash the plane before they would allow the hijackers control over the aircraft.
Passengers had also been conditioned to just stay in their seats and be calm. That would never happen today. Even on 9/11, the passengers on Flight 93 figured out that it was fight back or die trying.
One of the reasons that AQ did all four hijackings simultaneously, is that they knew they would never be able to exploit the same vulnerabilities again.
No. The government absolutely does not have the power to force people to surrender their constitutional liberties (either implicitly or explicitly) just because someone wants to do something completely innocuous. If you feel the government should have unlimited power, then try to amend the constitution. Otherwise, screw off.
The implicit part is because they technically haven't explicitly said that they want to. Instead, it's said to be implicit in the fact that they want to get on a plane.
If you want to get all strict-constructionist on this matter though, planes, cars, buses, and rail didn't even exist when the Constitution was written, so one could argue that there's no Constitutional protection when travelling by anything beyond horseback, carriage, or walking.
No you cannot argue that. The Constitution says nothing about technology and everything about how humans behave.
Then there's the other side, where airlines were allowed to be in charge of their own security, letting "the market" set the balance, but then nineteen men decided to kill about 3500 men, women, and children one day, and our society realized that it wasn't gonna work to let the airlines be in charge of security.
That strategy ceased to be effective at 9:03AM on 9/11/2001 over a field in Shanksville, PA. And you know who figured that out? Ordinary Americans, doing the security calculus themselves, where the government had completely failed to protect them, despite having many opportunities to do so.
To be double-sure the airlines all secured their cockpit doors. That risk no longer exists, which is why the TSA has never caught a terrorist. They do violate the human rights of Americans all day, every day. In an effort to stop the terrorists, they have become the terrorists, all because they consciously choose to violate the highest law of the land.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Even if one accepts a failure of security, the only "tightening of security" that would have made any difference today versus on 9/11 are the locked, reinforced cockpit doors. Had the planes had those on 9/11, the hijackers could have threatened or even killed all of the passengers/crew (except for the pilots), but the plane would have landed safely without crashing into any buildings.
We could roll back the "enhanced security" to pre-911 levels, keeping only those cockpit door improvements, and we'd be just as safe as we are right now.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
BTW, this would not be an issue or illegal if it was still private security at the airport.
So it is perfectly acceptable to you if a large corporation wants to search you and your effects prior to letting you buy their product (which you need to buy to be able to exercise other rights you have), but is not acceptable if a government does it for the very same reasons?
I pointed out the "need to buy" part because so much of the argument about TSA searches includes the idea that travel by air is an essential part of the freedom to travel and that taking other modes is not sufficient to provide "choice" in the matter. I.e., one needs to travel, and travel by other-than-air is not a reasonable mode to accomplish that.
Would you be comfortable with Comcast, e.g., assuming the right to search your computer to make sure you did not use or had not used their internet service for illegal activity? By the way, part of the contract you sign with them includes a section prohibiting use of their service for illegal activities.
It may not have constitutional authority, but might makes right.
Andrew Jackson force-marched indigenous people thousands of miles from the ancestral lands that they'd continuously occupied for longer than this nation had existed to open that land up to settlers of European ancestry, even against court-order, because Congress didn't join with the Supreme Court and force his hand.
Andrew Jackson is featured on our money, despite falling into your definition of a traitor.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
"I teleported home one night,
With Ron and Sid and Meg.
Rons stole Meggie's heart away,
And I got Sydney's leg."
Really? The public demanded? Who? Where? When? All I remember is scaremongering from the press and politicians telling us that the sky is about to fall and how they need to protect us.
I honestly cannot remember a single instance where anyone demanded to trade his liberties for "safety".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Warrants have nothing to do with this.
For fuck's sake. The point was that general warrants are unconstitutional, so why the hell would it be okay to search everyone *without even so much as having a warrant*? It was to demonstrate just how absurd this situation is, not to say that warrants are somehow involved in this situation.
Who said that? You? It wasn't me.
In that case, hopefully no one.
I know you are substituting a different subjective word for the one really found in the fourth amendment and are now arguing based on your personal definition of that different word.
I'm arguing that the idea that the government has the power to force you to surrender rights if you try to do something (in this case, travel on a plane) that isn't illegal (merely because some people could do something illegal) is absurd. I thought that would've been clear, but if it wasn't clear, I think it should be now.
But I see where this is going. Rather than focusing on my fundamental points, you're just being pedantic and nitpicking at my usage of the English language.
I am neither a TSA apologist nor have I (incorrectly) argued that there is an implicit waiver. I was quite explicit in saying that there is an explicit waiver involved. "Go past this point and you are subject to search." You see that explicit statement and then choose to go past that point. That's an explicit waiver.
The implicit part is supposedly your acceptance of being searched, not the idea that you will be searched (which is spelled out explicitly).
You claimed that people were waiving their rights just for wanting to get on a plane.
Dude, you're pedantic as fuck. I don't know if you've ever heard of exaggerations or how normal people use language (which is rarely 100% precise), but you should get acquainted with those things, and fast. Just my opinion.
I claim the TSA search is "reasonable"
Then you don't exactly belong in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' now do you?
The idea that general warrants are unconstitutional, while having government agents search everyone who tries to get on a plane without even so much as a warrant merely because some people criminals/terrorists, is absolutely absurd. No, it's not "reasonable" in any way, shape or form. This issue is black-and-white, and settled. No amount of authoritarian 'logic' will show otherwise.
Finally, I remember that when I was younger (mind you, this was back in the 1970's), having to provide identification and being subjected to searches before being able to travel was the scope of godless Communists and tinpot dictators.
THIS! A million times over.
I specifically remember my social studies teacher in elementary school telling us the U.S. is good and Russia is bad and then explaining why. One reason is because in Russia you had to show your papers just to travel. Another was that in Russia the KGB listened to your phone calls.
The commies didn't die out, they just took over the U.S.