Slashdot Mirror
Total Recall Weapon Scanner a Reality
verch writes
"American
Security and Control has produced a
real life version of the weapon scanner in Total Recall.
It uses a narrow 'low exposure' x-ray that can scan a fully
dressed person on a conveyor belt in 10 seconds to show guns,
bombs, etc. Now instead of putting your luggage through the
x-ray machine at the airport you can just ride through it
holding your luggage and have everything scanned. Hopefully
it's won't cause more people to die of cancer.. "
Better read that Code of Federal Regulations a little closer; "negligible" is an acceptable body count in government risk assessment NewSpeak. The model that produces that "negligible" number is a mathematical projection of effects seen at higher higher levels, based on the **assumption** that the dose-response curve is linear.
In fact, risk assessment is not a substitute for science. If we knew what the actual body counts were, we wouldn't be using risk assessment methods. In fact, there's broad agreement in the scientific community that "risk assessment" is incapable of giving us any certainty that the numbers are even in the ball park, and that it's only rational use is in ranking relative risks for purposes of regulatory or other curative action.
Disturbingly, the historical reliability of such regulatory numbers is a history of constantly downward revision, as newer tests show that lower doses of radiation and toxic substances are harmful. Moreover, the dose response curve with radiation is actually supra-linear in some tests, the cumulative dose to which individuals have been exposed is not entered into the equation, nor is their individual sensitivities.
Perhaps most damningly, virtually the entire U.S. federal effort to regulate radiation and toxic substances assumes zero exposure from other sources, other toxins, and by other exposure routes. It's a house of cards that has not served us well. For example, it's only been in this decade that we finally persuaded EPA to review **average** human exposure to a relatively small family of chlorinated dioxins, dibenzofurans, and biphenyls that act by a common toxic mechanism, but still ignoring the fact that a broad class of halogenated hydrocarbons share the same aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase mechanism at the cellular level. And what of the more than 10,000 new chemicals that enter commerce every year? Can you assure us that none of them will increase our susceptibility to radiation?
The bottom line: anyone who bases claims of safety on risk assessment techniques is either ignorant or dishonest.
For an interesting read, you might take a look at the first case I litigated, before I went to law school. 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1984).
Paul E. Merrell
pem@televar.com
While the procedure for using this device needs to be clarified for privacy reasons, I actually welcome better security at US airports. Compared to some other countries, what we endure in the states is feeble. If you travel overseas, you probably know what I mean. On different occassions this is what I had to go through.
1) Once had all my bags (check-in and carry-on) thoroughly hand searched. Everything got dumped out and sifted through like they were searching for a penny. This was a year after the Lockerbie explosion so everybody's bags got searched this way.
2) Got patted down fairly thoroughly. And no, he didn't so now know where to hide my "gun".
3) Got pulled off to the side so that they could search my backpack after the x-ray machine showed something suspicious. A nice soldier was asked to join us (hey, nice machine gun!).
4) Got stopped in Heathrow while carrying data recording equipment and assorted cables. Once again, hey nice machine gun!
In each instance, I didn't mind that they were so security minded.
I also have grave concerns about some of the privacy issues. However, airport security in the US could be better. Being asked, "Has anyone you don't know given you something to carry on the plane?" is kind of feeble.
The radiation dose is 0.24 mRem. You get ~1 mRem per day natural background (cosmic rays, radon, etc.). That's completely and utterly harmless. I'm sitting here reading a copy of 10CFR20 (government standards for radiation protection) now as a matter of fact, and I can say with assurance this is an absolutely negligible amount of radiation. If you passed through one of these twice every day, you'd be getting less exposure (including average background) than people in, say, Denver CO do in background alone. The cancer rates in places with abnormally high background (ie Denver, Norway) are not statistically different from elsewhere.
From their own webpage:
This makes hacking a handy tool for terrorists and smugglers. The "only" thing they have to do is hack the scanning station's computer, to display the image that they want the operator to see at the right time. If the system has automated image recognition-based alarms for knives, guns, drugs etc. you need to disable them as well.
One might envision a specifically shaped object that can be recognized by computer vision techniques, triggering the fake image display and disabling alarms.
Given the current rate of virusses popping up for windoze systems, it is a pretty scary thought.
- the Apocalyptic Lawnmower
The Conpass x-1280 runs on an Windows-based 350Mhz Intel Pentium II workstation
Then we don't have much to worry about. They'll see blue objects most of time.
Heh... Yea, I know. That's why it's science! It's not 100% effective, but nothing is. But, as far as false positives, they know how to rule out classes, catalog false positives, type mixtures... It's really a science, and prototype testing has shown like 10% false positive's in real world trials. Not good yet, but it's still just an experiment.
There are some good alternitives though, among them is a system being developed in a few places including LANL, that is more "non-invasive", where they sniff the air around you (like a drug/bomb sniffing dog, only automated). You walk in the thing, air swishes around you, and back into the instrument, and they get instant readings on trace chemicals (selecting out perfume, selecting explosive chemical precursers...)
Anyone who really cares, email me if you want some journal referances.
Orwell was just 15 or so years off...
They claim equivalent to a one hour flight. So let's put one in every post office, stadium, bank, govt office, office building, etc. I see it very easy to pass thru 5 or 10 of these a day. That's more radiation than I want. Multiply it by millions of people, and I bet more people would die of cancer from this pervasive scanning than would die from the weapons it finds.
How many guns and explosives have actually been found by airport scanners? How many would have deaths would there have been if there were no airport scanners?
And the cost -- I imagine all the money spent on these scanners would save more lives if simply spent on immunizations, or better medical care for the poor (no I'm not advocating socialism here).
--
Infuriate left and right
Okay, at airports, security is tight. So this technology might very well be used there. But imagine what happens when they put this in at bars, schools, hospitals, or other places. How far will we invade people's privacy? Will people be able to say "no"?
Imagine if by simple x-ray scan someone knew that you were wearing a tape recorder. Think they'd want to talk to you?
--
-earl
I was at first concerned that it was "only as much as a flight" because that's actually a lot more than most people think, but it's only about 5% of what you get in a 3-hour flight, so it's not that bad at all.
I figure this will just make plastic/ceramic guns that much more popular.
Sales of lead-lined underwear have increased ten-fold.
"...Is this world not a call I can screen out" --
Excuse me but this is to me going a tad too far.
And I don't think other people will tolerate it either. These kind of scanners will show exactly what we are wearing, enhancers and all... Not to mention if someone has been through an accident and contains extra metals in different places. What are they going to do then? Strip search someone because his hip has been replaces and the upper femur looks like a gun? Not to mention people who are pierced in assorted places *hint*, although I think the alarms go off on them already but at least they don't have to show were they are pierced.
Nope, I don't think this will happen, and if it does, I am quite sure there will be protests when people discover that you do not only see weapons of different kinds but also the shape of people's bodies. Just look at the picture up to the right and say that doesn't look like a women...
Oh, well, maybe it all will spawn a new kind of pr0n. The "entertainment" industry has been the first many times to use new technology.
With hopes people has a great weekend,
Johan
This is a really frightening development. What is under your clothes is your own business. Do you want people to know about your piercings, or hip replacement, or colostomy bag, or pacemaker, or flask? Our society is harsh enough already on those who don't conform to the *external* appearance of normalcy.
If we make the assumption that the widespread use of this technology is inevitable, what standards must we set to ensure that privacy is not sacrificed? Here's few off the top of my head:
1. Clearly mark anyplace such a system is being used, so people can at least know if they are being scanned (this becomes more important as the technology advances and becomes less obvious).
2. Allow people to opt-out and be searched by traditional means. At least a hand search doesn't leave a recorded image.
3. Secure the output display area to prevent unauthorized viewing, and establish a system of ethics for the operators.
Any others?
Dude, if your interested in that kinda stuff, i recommend a book called "The Transparent Society", i beleive the author is David Brin...Excellent, book.
"The world only exists in your eyes. You can make it as big or as small as you want." - F Scott Fitzgerald
It mentions in the article that the thing can be used to scan for drugs and other "contraband".
Great. Does this mean I can't take my weed with me when I go on a flight anymore? Just what I need... more invasion of privacy, more danger of being busted for a harmless "crime".
How long before such devices are placed on streets and in building entrances to randomly search the populace As opposed to security guards? The only reason we don't have security guards all over is because then we'd have to pay them, pay Social Security, Medial, Dental, etc. This would be a great cheap alternative. I don't think the gov't would have a huge database of our wallet contents... (Think of how messed up the IRS is! This would be even worse!) But then, on the other hand, people are always quick to give up their rights, if it means catching more criminals. And unfortunately, each new law creates more criminals. What wasn't illegal yesterday, is illegal today. So then more criminals are caught that weren't criminals the day before and the law looks like it's doing the trick, while normal people go to prison and prisons become more and more overcroweded. My $0.02USD, anyway...