Slashdot Mirror
New Body Scanners Installed In Airports
KahunaBurger writes "The Boston Globe has an article today titled "Rights backers fight scanner that gets under clothes". The US customs service has installed new scanners in five major US airports "that can see through passengers' clothes and search for contraband with an image that shows the naked body." Rights activists are equating this to a 'electronic strip search.' I don't know; getting frisked always makes me feel like a bad guy on COPS.
This is bad, very bad. How dare they try to protect the public from terrorists? Why are they infringing on the right of people to kill hundreds in senseless slaughter? Boy, this is a bad thing. Big Brother I tell you. Those terrorists should be allowed their privacy to make weapons. Boy, I really hope this gets blocked or something since I am very scared of the thought of feeling safer at the airport.
Yep, I have had loads of fun hanging around the
FLIR stands at helicopter trade shows!
What is the limit beyond which X-rays become dangerous for our health?
body scanner != metal detector
Just get some tinfoil stencil of your phone number, and put it on your bum. Then if he likes you, you'll get a phone call. :-)
"It's no big deal, see, it's just for black^H^H^H^H^Hsuspicious people, and you can choose not to have it done, it's not mandatory."
"It's so much cheaper to do it this way, we need less staff, it's no big deal, we'll just do it all this way."
"Why bother with just the metal detectors, after all, it's for the children. We'll just let everyone walk through this. It's no big deal, only criminals have something to hide."
That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
If its the hot chick I think I will require physical patting, if its the dude I will make him look at my video profile.
given the way most of the people at my job look at female customers, I'd say it's quite likely that most attrative women will be "suspected" of carying a weapon, and will have to be scanned...of course I haven't read the article and have NO idea of how clear the immage is, or how the machine works
Second, there is a large difference between stripping for the sake of your own health and stripping for the sake of someone seeing what you just might have to hide.
Requiring this crap when people travel, along with the excessive (read: any) licensing and registration of cars and individuals has made free and open travel in this country an utter myth.
"I need to see your papers."
How long do you think before we can find "airport scanners - hidden camera porn" on the internet. I figure from the time they go into use we'll probably have - what - maybe 10 minutes to wait.
Nothing like showing off your nipple rings shine and strut your brand new tattoos on the monitor in front of fellow passengers!
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." --- John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election (1790)
These aren't Kodak moment pictures, dumb ass. These are X-ray type pictures. So what you're telling me is that if someone took an X-ray of your right arm at the doctor's ... and you placed that X-ray with 1000 other X-ray's of a bone ... you would be able to pick yours out of the pile..."that's my bone!" There is no skin or facial features. It's like a gray blurr...you can't even distinguish who the person is in the picture. But that gray blurr is in the OUTLINE of a human form. A human form that if even you saw the picture of yourself...you would not be able to tell it was you. What shows up really well is guns and knives, etc. And that's what they want to see.
"Score one for the Secret Cervix!" -- Butthead, when the Highland High School principal was taken down by Secret Service agents when President Clinton made a visit.
Is is just me or has slashdot really gone downhill lately? It seems that every day now we get these stories which claim to have found some new invasion of our privacy. Often, these posts are obviously un researched, and the replies are even worse. I just hate to see Slashdot go to shit like this.
Don't believe everything you see on Die Hard 2.
The fact that you can choose to be frisked rather than scanned is defeating the purpose with the machine. If you carry contraband you would rather take a frisk so as to avoid detection. A terrorist who often are willing to die, is never going to pick the scanner. If you put the scanner there run all people through it. After all, it's there to protect us from sudden death or mutilation.
Read the story again. It's an alternative to being patted down, not to being strip searched. That's part of the issue... it makes [virtual] strip searches that much easier to push.
Sample picture generated by body scanner: http://216.149.33.140/products/lg_body02.html
I am opposed, unless of course they are putting the pictures online. Then I am all for it.
go to hell
I wonder what opinion the recently released Indian hostages would have about using the BodySearch in airports. If I was put though that hell I would not want it to happen to anyone again.
A beowulf cluster of these at Natalie Portman's house.
Doesn't anyone remember this gag from Airplane? All these people were walking through airport security where they had an "x-ray" camera with security guards wathcing. Funny thing was only large breasted women walked by the camera.
Really, though, doesn't this just mean that I, as a terrorist, must simply fly into one of the thousands of other airports that don't have giant evil body scanners?
they are planning on expanding their use to domestic flights within the next 2 years. this slippery slope is a dangerous one.
anyone seen this movie? it addresses this issue. its a suprisingly good movie.
how many hijackings are there? so far as I know, NOT MANY. especially on American flights which is where this is being used. a little known fact but incidents of terrorism are at a 20 year low.
On the more pragmatic side, think about health concerns. If everyone were going about their day-to-day business in the buff (or nearly so), would *you* want to sit in a seat recently occupied by someone with herpes, or hemorrhoids, or a yeast infection?
The checked luggage are *NOT* run through the X-Ray scanners. That is the point of weakness, and something that ought to be fixed, IMO.
Overall, I think it's quite a humorous adventure reading responses like this -- it goes to show that insecurity among (presumably heterosexual) males, at least in some places, is still alive and well.
This having been said, I do not agree with the policy of using electronic body scanners. It qualifies as one more example where it makes it easier to subject innocent people to the whims of those claiming to "protect" us, all the while doing so at the expense of our dignity.
>I just don't know...
This pretty much sums up your argument.
What exactly will it take for you to wake up? Stormtroopers kicking in your door before you realize your liberty and life are threatened? I cannot believe how much people will sacrifice in the name of "security"! Does anyone have the courage to say, "I am willing to lay my life on the line in order to protect that which is most dear to me, my freedom"? Not anyone here in Slashdotland, just give them a gilded cage and they'll sing along happily.
Do you have the right to walk to where you want to go and if you disagree with the Neighborhood Safe Streets Security Measures then they are impeding on your rights?
Are you getting any of this? I doubt it, it's probably over your head.
comes when someone stands in front of the scanner and then refuses to get away
My analogy holds well. And why on earth do you go and make this an American thing?
Anyway... my whole point to all of this was that just like you can't CHOOSE not to drive a car from city to city without relying on the public roadways, you cannot easily do so with air transportation as well. It has become a modern life need that many people/businesses/economies rely upon and there are few alternatives.
God, you are so blinded by your ideology your twisting recent history. It was Ronald Reagan that fucked over the Pilot's union.
That's how we're raised in the US. It's wrong to be naked. It's wrong to look at naked people.
Frankly this devise doesn't increase security 1 little bit. During the fight to stop implementation of this technology it was proven that simply making clothing that had a sigle thread of lead fiber throughout the material would effectively block the scan well enough to make it useless. The cost for producing such clothing, no more than the average cost of a sweatshirt at a local retailer. The effect, renders the technology useless. Net effect, only those who are NOT criminals, or who are stupid get caught. Most cases, legitimate people are subjected to this degrading process. Yes, odds are you will be frisked while wearing such clothing as it would be highly suspect that your scan doesn't work right, but hiding items from a frisking has always been proven to be easy with tape and body contouring. Thusly this technology does nothing to increase security from those determined to get around the security. The only effect it has is removing our freedoms and subjecting innocents to being degraded. Yes, I understand that as of right now it will only be used on those who are suspected of illegal activities. Funny thing is, the same was said for the metal detector, only for those suspected of illegal activities. Think hard, when was the last time you went to an airport without going through a metal detector? Do you still think this technology will remain only for those suspected of illegal activities for long? Or do you think that the fact you have to walk through a metal detector means you are suspected of illegal activities?
You get more radiation walking from you house to the car coming from the sun, than you get from one of these scanners. I'm an x-ray tech, and this is nothing even compared to a real x-ray, this can't even see bones very well.
As far as guns that can not be detected by x-ray systems and metal detectors, YES THE MYTH LIVES! Sorry to burst your bubble, but all guns (even Glocks, the source of the original myth) have some steel parts (the barrel is one part that must be steel lined) and are detectable by both type of devices.
I think that it is very silly for people to be so upset that their "privacy" is being sacrificed for their own security and the security of their country. Unless you're committing a crime by attempting to smuggle something, you really have nothing to worry about with these scanners, its not like customs / airport security people get special kicks out of seeing a rough image of your naked body.
Yeah, but you only get blown up once.
If seeing posts that have a slant you don't particularly agree with (and so label unresearched) and replies/opinions that you don't like lead you to assume /. is going to shit, you're in for a rather large pile.
Oh course, you can tell me of a manufacturer and the model of the ceramic gun that can pass through a metal detector w/o setting it off, right? Knew you couldn't, idiot.
I notice that they reference TWA 800 as the reason for implementing this. However, they repeatedly deny that any bomb was aboard TWA 800, causing it to go down. Either there was a bomb aboard, and we need increased security, OR there wasn't a bomb aboard, and we are loosing more of our rights, under the guise of 'security'.
Even if you were to use some sort of ceramic or whathaveyou to make a weapon which doesn't register to a metal detector, the bullets will.
You think if you did bring a ceramic weapon on board a plane without any bullets, jumped out of your seat and yelled that you were hijacking the plane, people would raise their hands and point out that you couldn't have bullets with you? I think they'd probably assume that you found a way to sneak bullets on with you...
Are you really subjected to strip searches at the airport that often?
nobody is talking about "rights" to fly. We are talking about when something becomes used often and for the common good of the public, it starts to see government regulation. Witness: roads, water, electricity, phone, cable, etc... it has NOTHING to do with "rights" whatsoever. There are many politcal science texts on the subject. Society progressed to the point that technology lead to cars and roads. We pay taxes to fund these and maintain these. The AIRLINES were headed down this same route. Again, read "Hard Landing" and you'll see. Ever wonder why airlines have "territories"? American--Chicago, Dallas, Delta: Atlanta, United: Northeast, etc.. these were born of gorvernment subsidies during the days when air traffic was mainly used for carrying goods/mail/etc... routes were divided up among the highest bidders who could fly the plans. they had sole possession of those routes. Just like you can't "choose" to drive a car that doesn't have the DOT-regulated "red" brake lights (those purple things are illegal in the states), you cannot choose NOT to fly without FAA oversight! Get it!?!? So the guy that said we can choose not to use their service and we are not given the right to every company's offering, I agree for the MOST part, but not here: when there is no alternative flying mechnism.. you fly, you play by the rules. im done with this thread. :P
Just because they aren't pretty means you can treat them like shit huh? I would rather be around them than self-righteous, egotistical, arrogant, people like you. POS.
"Hey, if Strom Thurmond or Janet El Reno are packing heat, don't you want to know about it?"
Not in those particular cases, no.
>concealed weapons that can't be found with
>detectors (non-metalic guns and knives, for
>instance)
That's not entirely true.
There are no totally non-metallic firearms, at least not commercially available in the US (and in my state EVERYTHING is available.)
About fifteen years ago, when Glock first started offering their pistols here, the same outcry happened, and it was a non-starter. I carry their subcompact 9mm as an off-duty gun. Yes, the frame is polymer. However, there's still better than a pound of alloy steel in it. Other polymer-framed pistols such as the H&K and the new Steyr are pretty much the same, at almost 80% metal by weight.
As for a non-metallic stabbing weapon, I can guarantee that you have one on your desk. It's called a cheap ballpoint pen.
There's a difference between weapons and contraband. Contraband doesn't typically include weapons, and a well-trained dog is generally quite able to find most of what's out there. A good dog and a competent handler will outperform one hundred minimum-wage retirees like the ones that run the Kansas City airport checkpoints. Even if the retirees do have total authority to strip-search people.
>and seazure, and I think this steps overthe
>line. No, there are no such US laws in this context.
THe US Supreme Court has ruled that Customs inspections require no probable cause or reasonable suspicion whatsoever. Customs' procedures can be totally arbitrary, and it's as legal as church on Sunday.
Also, the Fourth Amendment has been held to be limited to criminal matters. Technically, airport security is considered to be an "administrative" search, and not a search for criminal evidence. Therefore, the burdens of proof for a lawful search are FAR lower.
I don't like it either, but you'll need to take it up with the people that appoint USSC justices.
Read the article. The devices are for customs.
Actually this is not unreasonable but reasonable, assuming the cloth does anything useful (which it might or might not). I always used to laugh when powering up a laptop was considered a reasonable test. I suppose this might catch morons, but any experienced bomber is just going to build a laptop-bomb that works as a laptop, and explodes at the desired time/place. It's not that hard.
On the other hand, explosives have unique signatures, so a chemical test or an olfactory test (like the dogs or the new mechanical "sniffers") is a good way to detecting the more common bomb components.
As another pointed out, no security can really prevent terrorism, all you can do is raise the stakes and increase the liklihood of failure and hope the thugs go somewhere else.
Being an overweight individual I am highly offended at your association of excessive weight and sexual perversion.
Ur gay
You're a nerd. So what if someone sees you naked? You should've lived during Queen Victoria those were your days.
What would you do if all water companies started putting some chemical in the water that 10% of the population was allergic too? There *ARE* other alternatives and you "don't have a right to every single convenience that some company has to offer." no? You could stock up on bottled water, dig a well, boil all your water before use. Right? Wrong. Air transportation is no different.
Read "Hard Landing", it's a great read on the airline industry.
These pictures are not Kodak moment pictures. It's not like...if you walked through the scanner the picture would come out with skin and facial features and color and such. It's a GREY BLURR in the form of a human body. If you went through the scanner... and then looked at the picture immediately afterwards...you would NOT be able to determine that was you. I could pass a manequin through it and it would look exactly the same. Get a grip. It's an XRAY not a picture! I'm sorry...but this is a great idea. Period.
1. Can't see bones? Well Duh! If you read about the system you'll see that it looks at backscatter and not at transmitted X-Rays (like the x-rays you work with). That doesn't mean one thing about the level of radiation being emitted. 2. You'll notice that the genitals of the person in the picture appear to be shielded... so I'm assuming that the company though it was enough of a risk to the test subjects testicles to take proper precautions that Joe Sixpack won't have the chance to. 3. More radiation walking to the car? In terms of total incident power... maybe. However I'm sure my liver will get more of a charge out of their scanner than it will walking down my driveway. (Or is *your* driveway at the top of Mt. Everest?) --Rob (too lazy to signin)
The next guy in line is wearing camoflage fatigues, body armor, grenade launcher on his back, machine gun in hand, several hundred rounds of ammo draped about his neck, torso ringed with sticks of dynamite and a timer.
Benny Hill just waves him through! :)
What ever happened to the good British humorists?
A previous Slashdot article on this: http://slashdot.org/articles/99
A previous CNN article (from 1997): http://cnn.com/TECH/9702/11/body.scanner s/
A previous PRWeb article (from 1998): http://www.prweb.com/releases/1998
Having a relative that works with this company, and does the installations, I can tell you that their equipment is used primarily to search vehicles for drugs and weapons, not people. Some of their major installations are on the US/mexico border, and South Africa.
The vast majority of their sales are of their vehicle scanning units. They have very few of the BodySearch scanners in use. Most of those are also at "border patrol" facilities, and are intended more as "cavity search" methods than as a general search.
Furthermore, you are almost always given the choice whether or not to be scanned. Take your pick: black and white scan that shows little to no detail? Or rubber glove full body cavity search? I think it's an obvious choice.
I hate to shatter your ignorance, but there are no plastic guns. You've bought hook line and sinker into HCI's propaganda about the Glock's and similar handguns. They have plastic grips and a plastic coated frame, but the slide and barrel are good old-fashioned steel and register to any metal detector.
Even if you were to use some sort of ceramic or whathaveyou to make a weapon which doesn't register to a metal detector, the bullets will.
So am I the only one who read the article? These are customs scanners used only on international flights with people already suspected of possessing contraband. If you get snagged by a large customs K9 barking up your leg, I really don't think some push-button agent behind a screen seeing your willy is the biggest of your problems. Just my two cents.
> The movies usually give us a GOOD idea what to
> expect in the future when technology is
> concerned.
Dear god! You mean C.H.U.D. is REAL!?
:)
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
The computer itself could do the check.
Except that there are many such objects that one may be carying about without being a potential terrorist. Think of metal pens, metal belt buckles, a bunch of keys, coins, ... Also, how about things like dental fillings and all that? Consider also that the objects are likely to be moving about during the whole process, especially when there is no human operator around. It's very easy for a human to identify the kind of objects I menstioned for what they are, but making a computer do it reliably is an other matter.
The reliability is a major issue. A single false negative can virtually kill the company or deploying agency. Yet, too many false positives and the whole automation isn't worth the investment either.
I'm not saying that it cannot be done and in fact I'm quite sure that it will be done at some point, but...
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
The guy gets some kind of non-metal gun, and put a bullet or two in one of those little rabbit's foot keychains to get through the metal detector.
The point is, bullets are small enough that you could hide them without too much difficulty.
Lets throw around some real ideas on how to detect contraband,
Couple the AI system with an MRI like scan to assist it in detecting objects on your person. Perhaps an X-ray and MRI combination with image display.
It also seems to me that the current scanner could be fine if the screen display were deliberatly lo-res or blurry.
Better training on the part of flight crews and anti-hijack devices on planes might prevent the whole problem. The flight crew has a natural advantage over most hijackers in that they can fly the plane and the hijacker usually can't. Anesthetic gas into the cabin (with pilot on oxygen), sounds like a cheezy movie, but it could actually work. Even if the hijacker gets into the cockpit, he now has a choice of passing out or having the pilot pass out. Right now, IF the hijacker gets on the plane, the hijacking itself is fairly easy (reletive term). Make that part hard enough and there will be less hijack attempts in the first place. It would also bring a quick end to attempts by the stupid ones.
How do they know when the system isn't working?
The magic floating suitcases would be a good clue.
Unfortunatly, with any gas option you run the risk of people being hyper-allergenic to them.
Very true, but everyone is allergic to bullets, bombs, and knives being plunged into their bodies. What is needed to avoid the liability issues is a safety regulation that requires the airlines to have this. They can't be sued for it then.
Just start shooting people untill they drop the oxygen masks.
Either the hijacker or everyone who knows how to drop the masks will be unconscious. Anesthetic gas works even if mixed with oxygen. In general portable medical oxygen systems do not exclude the surrounding atmosphere, they just enrich the oxygen level.
I agree that a political hijacker probably wouldn't mind if the pilot passes out, but in that case, very little would. You can't negotiate with someone who already has what he wants (hostages and media coverage). There is still the probability of the political hijacker failing to get the pilot's oxygen mask in time.
In summary, it's not foolproof, but it's better than nothing, and would work in many cases.
How about pressure?
No flames here, I'd thought about that too. It has the advantage of only requiring a modification to existing systems. The reason I went with gas was the liklihood of complications of anesthetic vs. oxygen deprivation. Of course, it does have less risk of complications than being shot does.
I enjoyed 'The Langoliers' (sp?).
When was the last time you flew? You don't carry your suitcases through the metal detector, speedy.
Yes, but the body scanner is NOT the metal detector. It's just a matter of where in the gauntlet the body scanner is placed. Either just before you place carry-on on the conveyer (for the X-ray), or right after you pick it up again would be fine.
In most cases of political hijacks, none, or only a few of the hostages are killed. You seem to be willing to gamble with the lives of the passengers. I'd say the pilot passing out is a big loss.
The pilot passing out is an unlikely worst case scenario. In order for that to happen, the hijacker must first enter the cockpit without arousing suspicion. That can be made a great deal harder by keeping the door to the cockpit locked at all times (and made strong enough). Next the hijacker has to wrestle the face mask off of the pilot before the gas takes effect. Anesthetic gasses are very fast these days (in some cases, under a second).
I suspect strongly that it would save a lot more passengers than it would kill.
... they just bought up all those handycams with the infrared option that can be used in the daylight! Instant x-ray glasses :-)
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
Along with the name of the person who found a way to make bullet casings from ceramics. Or maybe they used paper mache for that? Look, all sarcasm aside, this has nothing to do with guns. Guns, as currently made, cannot be made from something like ceramics, or even plastic. Glocks (the guns referenced in die hard as being made of ceramic materials) have their base/grips made from a polymer. But, the rest is mostly metal. The clips have metal sides, a metal plate that feeds the ammo into the gun and a spring. The Gun has a slide which is metal (usually bar stock) a recoil spring, sear, firing pin, barrel, etc. You ever hear of making a spring capable of the force a recoil spring is required to have out of ceramic materials? How about plastic? A ceramic gun would quite simply explode the first time it was fired. Same with plastic. Won't work. Has to have some metal parts.
Now, the implementation of this does not have anything to do with searching for bombs or guns. It has to do with searching for drugs. And this is yet another piece of our liberty that we are supposed to sacrifice so we can get those drug dealers and 'save the children'. This is yet another attempt to get around the fourth amendment. Some of you have said you think this is ok. That you'd rather have that than being strip searched/etc.
Ok, so why not put these in cop cars. You know, so instead of pulling you over or aside, they can just sit in their car and check you out to see if you are packing any drugs? I mean, it's more convenient than having them pull you over and try and force you to let them conduct an illegal search right?
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
... As long as I knew for sure there were no bombs aboard. I think it's OK.
No sig. Go away.
Consider the ever rising age for requiring identification when purchasing alchohol or tobacco. What started out as a check against the young(read: politically irrelevant) became a burden against not only those commiting crimes but a privacy worry for anyone under the age of thirty(read: politically less relevant).
The parallels to not being able to move from city to city without the proper papers are striking, and while slippery slope logic may be fallacious, there's some pretty empirical evidence that this slope is very slippery, though it takes years to take the trip.
It is likely that the widespread presence of human scanning equipment would lead to mandatory "virtual strip searches" on everyone who passed through, just as the rather private contents of one's pockets and purses must be shown to an X-Ray technician in order to fly.
And strangely enough, should the equipment be there, this would absolutely be the right thing to do in terms of maintaining security.
C'mon. Many of us are network engineers here. If we don't thoroughly check the content that client software passes our servers, we're lambasted for excess trust as we should be. Network security is not different from physical security--the problem is that while packets don't mind being poked, prodded, analyzed, and logged, humans have a...somewhat different perspective. Worse, a human client can piggyback much more than a CGI exploit in their, um, packets.
Greater risk, with a higher "cost" of alleviating that risk. Ouch.
Frisking is undeniably more invasive than any scanner, but the high privacy cost means that agents cannot afford to roughly fondle every member of the public. The selection process used is guaranteed to incorporate profiles that are, at minimum, more accurate than chance, but much, much more questionable for political reasons. The entire quandry of getting full coverage on identified profiles without specifically inconveniencing those parties is cleanly avoided by a quick hands-free scan.
Security up, highly inconvenienced innocents who match the profile down.
Unfortunately, there's the whole problem of T&D.
Happily, this problem can be removed with some amount of programming. You're looking for an algorithm that takes the three input "discoveries"--
A) Blank backdrop
B) Skin
C) Object thicker than clothing that is obscuring skin
--and flags the machine operator if a given subject possesses any obvious non-skin segments in his scan. Should there be a hit, the computer could execute a filtering operation where the background flesh was erased from the foreground object, and a chart on the screen would overlay the shape of the object over live video of the subject. Should the only offending object be something that the agent could see directly on the person(such as a heart shaped belt buckle), the individual would be waved on. Only if the unidentified object could still not be easily explained by questioning the target would either a pat down search or a full scan need be executed.
Such a solution would prevent inappropriate context from being passed to the shape analysis system(another human) while still allowing universal, non-profiled, secure scanning of aircraft clients wishing to be granted access to company hardware.
I would feel safer with this system.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Personally, I don't know what to think about this. My luggage is already X-rayed every time I go to the airport, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that; I don't think many people would consider it an invasion of privacy.
I also go through a metal detector each time. I don't think this is a privacy invasion either. Now, I've never actually had to be frisked before. This said, though, I think I'd rather step in front of a machine than be frisked, as long as the machine was safe.
I do remember the screenshots posted last time this was brought up on Slashdot several months ago. Somehow I don't think the images from this thing will ever get onto any porn site; even the sickest freak out there wouldn't want these. Yeah, the gender of the person being scanned is pretty obvious (the Slashdot folks all got a good laugh out of that). But it's not like a photograph; it's more like a low-power X-ray with extremely little in the way of detail (the outline isn't even very clear, and certainly not as detailed as this article would have you believe).
I would prefer something low-powered enough that there wouldn't be any detail at all, but you run the risk of killing the scanner's effectiveness then. I do hope they work on something like that, though. It'd put a lot more people's minds at ease.
Most of us don't fly every day of our life. What
might be a negligable risk for an occasional
traveler could add up to being a sizable risk for
someone who is exposed every day. Ever gotten
a little dizzy from the gasoline fumes while
filling your car? Me too, and although I doubt
it's had any long term effects because I don't
need to fill the tank very often, if it happened
multiple times every day, I'd probably try harder
to avoid it (hold my breath?)
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
How throughly do these things get tested? I'd
prefer not to get cancer in 30 years just because
of genetic corruption caused through exposure to
radiation...
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Oh man! You mean those X-Ray Glasses really work?!?! I knew I should have saved those old comic book ads.
RFC2119
I know that the quality is not photo grade, and I know that it is just for those "Suspected" people out there, but consider this... How long will it take before it is a standard feature to pass through everytime you fly? The quality is low...for now. How long will it take before the resolution gets better? What then? For the chap who thinks that there is nothing wrong with being naked, I respect and share your belief that the human body is a beautiful thing, but would you like pics posted to the porn channels without your permission? Or your childs pics sent to pedo sites? Also, I'd prefer to get to where I'm going safely as much as you would, but you must consider this, Cameras were used to watch stores to protect inventory, now they are watching the streets and in some areas (this is a documented issue) can tilt,pan, and zoom into windows. Metal detectors were used to protect airports, and now are in many schools (including the one I graduated from - and it's an upper class school). The government has (and won't admit to having) computers that scan our E-Mail to watch for key words. It has started...it will not end here unless WE make a stand against our diminishing right to privacy. Phoenix Speaking about that e-mail scanner out there, I must send out another E-Mail to my mom about the movies that I have seen reciently that bombed at the box office and my thoughts on the fate of the nuclear family, and about the new household chemicals that are really good at cleaning a microwave after a potato blew up after it got nuked for too long. That ought to get its attention eh?
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
I've heard some interesting points made on both sides of this debate. On one hand, It is a good thing that they are trying to take steps to make airports safer in this era of mad bombers and other psycho head cases. But is it a good to perform an electronic strip search on everyone who passes through an airport? I don't think so.
There are laws that prevent unlawful search and seazure, and I think this steps overthe line. I understand the need to scan my luggage, I don't mind. I understand the need to have me pass through a metal detector, that's cool also. But to have to (in effect) stand naked infront of someone I don't know and don't know his/her mental state creeps me out. And that is what you have to do...someone who may or may not have perverted intentions, will be staring at your naked body as you pass by. Think of the other issue...what if someone monitoring the system were to sneak in a camera, take a few shots, and posts the pics on the internet. LAWSUIT TIME!
The question is this...do you want to risk shots of your husband/wife being posted to a.b.p.e.voyeurism? Or your teenager to a.b.p.e.Teens? Or perhaps your child on the pedophile groups? Is that level of security (considering that today's is very good as it stands) worth your naked image set as a background for some spotty, zit-faced, fat, no-lifed, sexual retard's computer where he can wank off to it like monkeys at the zoo?
Didn't think so...
Phoenix
"The universe is a gun, and they're pointing it at me"
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Airport security has always fascinated me. When I went to California, I lost my driver's license. Oh, getting back on the plane was fun. Luckly, I was not of darker skin color and stopped by the border guards. Anyway, at the airport, they let anyone with cheesy suits and slicked back hair go on by, while all those who had piercings and tattoos were frisked down and had every square inch of their bags scrutinized. That's a hint for the novice drug smugglers.
Anyway, before I lost my driver's licence (proper photo id) they "searched" my laptop computer by passing this chemically wetted cloth over it. Didn't even open the lid to see if it worked or if it was really contained nothing but bomb materials.
I feel safer driving my car. Sure, it doesn't go 560mph and takes several times as long at an average of 85mph to see the family, but if security is that dumb, perhaps the maintainance is lacking too. Statisticaly, mile per mile, its safer to fly. Its more fun too. But, I like to take ground based trips and get to see more and don't have to deal with "terrorists."
It's a slight embarrassment, that's all. A small price to pay for knowing none of your fellow passengers are carrying a ceramic pistol.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
I think we should cut of peoples' arms prior to entering a plane - without arms, they can't stab anyone. The children would be far safer (albeit armless).
Sounds ludicrous? Yes, and so does your fallacy.
Anecdotal evidence makes for good soundbites, but it doesn't really help your argument much. The way you word it, you get a choice of either being searched or blown up. In reality, such cases are VERY rare, and may not be worth the loss of rights this might entail (Some people would gladly take the 1 in a million chance instead of being treated like cattle).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
This isn't homophobic. Some people have a case of 'modesty' to deal with. many straight men don't want women - even those who they consider attractive - to be looking at them naked. Their wives may not appreciate it either. Why do you assume this is homophobia?
Many people don't like to be looked at by anyone who could be attracted to them, whether they are or not (unless they are dating, married, etc). This would naturally include the opposite sex and homosexuals. Since when is it homophobic? I'd call it modesty - esp. since the original poster practically bent over backwards to state that he was not trying to be homophobic.
This militant political correctness bullshit is getting very old...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
I bet they'll be real popular in high school. Girl watching will be replaced by girl scanning. Ahhh, progress. :-)
That would be a real nuisance. All the cute girls would die of skin cancer, from being scanned over and over.
Offering a choice isn't bad, but if it's a choice between being hanged or being shot[0], I would really like a third choice, being "Sod all this, I'm going home."
So you're missing the point. What if you don't agree to being searched/scanned/frisked at all? What choices do you have then? Can you tear up your ticket and go home? Or will you find a couple of Big Friendly Men-In-Blue blocking your way?
[0] Deliberate outrageous example
Schools, bars, what's next?
Stuff like this has a tendency to creep around. And it does so gradually, so people don't really notice. So, how long will it take for these scanners to enter the schools or the corner bar?
This thing will surely be loved by exhibitionists...
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
I don't know how it's going to be any consolation that people of the same sex are operating these machines - as if there are no homosexuals on airport staff. I know I'd have a blast operating one...
As long as this is optional, that's fine with me. If it were mandatory it might be an issue. Either way, I don't think that this is going to cut down on terrorism or drug smuggling in any significant way. Most of us have been bringing our drugs back and forth to the US by sticking them up our asses anyhow.
-lx
Well, gee.. there it is then.
Anyone who supports these things is clearly a pedophile, or someone who aids and abets pedophiles! Therefore, they must be banned!
Isn't that the only argument that beats "the terrorist threat" these days?
i know i thought the same thing when i saw this on /. . The movie was "airplane 2" though.
"Are you satisfied with fucking?" - Dave Matthews from "Halloween"
The proper use of this would be to simply use it as a replacement for strip searches. If it were, this would seemingly be less invasive. It would be good if they gave you a choice between this a a strip search, some would wonder if this is perhaps a carcinogen.
But because it could easily be used on everyone, then It probably will be used far more extensively than strip searches. I really don't think this will make us any safer. What i personally dread are the snide remarks made by the guards viewing the images.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
From this photo of what a scan reveals of body contours it seems to me that if a man were wearing boxers instead of what in this pix look like briefs (and even so real enough to bother some people) or if a women were not wearing a bra, the photo would be fairly revealing. I think that people with body modesty would have a legitimate complaint here.
A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
I have a blog.
Lets say that Gary Coleman and friends decide that they dont like the bulge in your pants. Once they take you into the back room to do the search, can you tell them to sod off? What happens if you do not consent to the search? Can you tear up your ticket, go to the parking lot and go home? If not, why?
When you buy a plane ticket, do you implicitly give consent for a strip search if the security detail deems it necessary? I can see them trying to justify it through probable cause arguments, but if you decide not to get on the plane the airport security shouldn't have one ounce of power over you.
Furthermore, how can we trust that no records are being kept. Wouldn't a nice black and white photo be handy for prosecution purposes... I know I don't want my ass on airportscannergayporn.com. Id also really rather not have the lowest denominator security guard squeezing my sack either, thank you. Depending on the nature of the trip, I just might decide to stay home and spend my vacation with a lawyer.
-BW
Is that a piece of semtex or are you just happy to see me? Hmmmmm....
For what it's worth, Flughafen Frankfurt Am Main (in Germany) has had this technology in its international departure section for years, and it wouldnt' surprise me if other major airports in Europe have, as well.
.... startled ... by it the first time I noticed it, and then it stopped being an issue.
I was a bit
Where is this "strip search" coming from? Strip search isn't discussed in the article. The scanner is a voluntary alternative to being frisked, which is already being done. If you don't want to be scanned, you can be frisked. Being searched invades your privacy, but with the new scanners you get a choice. I fail to understand why offering a choice is bad.
As for invading privacy due to security checks, it's too bad it's necessary. However, it would be foolish to ignore the freaks, criminals and terrorists out there, that would like to hijack planes, hostage people, or go on a killing spree for whatever reason they have. I feel safer, not because I'm searched, but because the other person is. And he/she feels safer because I'm searched. And yes, no security check is 100% waterproof. But even if they reduce the number of hijacks, hostages or other casualties by 10%, it's worth the little price.
Furthermore, how can we trust that no records are being kept.
You really think that putting hundreds of such machines on thousands of airports, that illegally take pictures will be kept a secret? In a country like the US?
Wouldn't a nice black and white photo be handy for prosecution purposes?
I think the prosecution will have a hard time getting an illegally obtained picture admitted as evidence.
I know I don't want my ass on airportscannergayporn.com.
Hmmm. I didn't know the scanners could detect someones sexual preferences. I also don't think security officers will let you do any sexual acts with a partner in front of the scanner.
Furthermore, it's kind of hard to keep the fact that such scanners take illegal pictures a secret when you post them on a website, isn't it? And if you read the article, you'll see that the images won't show any details. You really think people would pay to see an image of your blurred ass?
-- Abigail
That's something that has been answered a long, long time ago. If you don't want to be visually inspected, or touched without consent, you don't enter places where they do security checks, like airports, or concerts. You can always drive, take a private plane, or listen to a CD.
Planes and concerts aren't private places; you are there with a lot of other people. Which means that your rights aren't absolute - others have rights too. The right for safety for instance. Or fresh air. That's why on my airports you get checked, and on many flights, you aren't allowed to smoke.
-- Abigail
And neither is there a way to stop Murphy from dropping planes out of the air. 100% security isn't possible, but even catching 50% of the bad guys means more safety. Safety is about *reducing* chances things go wrong - not a "don't bother if doesn't eliminate the risk". It's like seatbelts in a car. Seatbelts didn't stop people from dying in car accidents, but it saved a lot of lives.
-- Abigail
That would be a bummer for the hijacker that hijacks a plane to get a large amount of money. However, it doesn't work for the political hijacker that's willing to die anyway - and that hasn't been uncommon in the past.
Furthermore, it's easily countered. Just start shooting people untill they drop the oxygen masks. Or have someone fake an illness that requires him or her to wear an oxygen mask and carry an oxygen tank.
-- Abigail
Why don't you read the article? This question is answered there, using simple words.
-- Abigail
Don't confuse customs and security. The devices talked about are for security - which you have to go through regardless where you fly, although you don't need to go through security if you board your private plane. Security can be dealt with by the airport, the airline, the local autorities, or some combination. Security deals with the safety of people, and they usually give a rats ass whether you carry freshly cut flowers with you.
Customs on the other hand are concerned with goods going from one country to another. You won't go through customs if you fly from Chicago to New York, or from Paris to Amsterdam. But if you fly from London to Miami, even on your private plane, you go through customs. Usually you just get waived through customs when leaving the country (there are more laws and taxes for goods brought into a country than for goods leaving a country), and only deal with them entering a new country.
I don't think I've ever went through customs and had my luggage or myself go through a scanner, although I've seen the Californian agriculture department scan luggage.
-- Abigail
Which part of an "voluntairy alternative of being frisked" didn't you understand? If you are afraid of other people seeing the outline of your body, opt for being frisked. Or better, don't carry things that offset the metal detector, and you're likely to pass on without further investigation.
If everybody in the us "decides" individually not to use airplanes, although it may be logical, there will be serious ramifications.
Oh yeah, certainly. But that's unlikely. It's more likely that when security gets less and more hijacks, bombing and shootings happen, more people decide to not use airplanes. I for one, prefer having security measures in place.
-- Abigail
I personally would refuse to fly if they had to put me through that thing.
14 year olds should be able to read. The article clearly said it's a choice you have as an alternative to being frisked. If you don't want it, you do not have to. Apparently, you seem to be happy with being felt up with - I guess everyone has his preferences.
Of course, to get as far as getting offered a choice, they first have to suspect you from carrying something illegal - for instance, repeatedly setting of the metal detector with something that you don't remove, not even after the magic wand waved at you.
To be scanned with this machine, you have to do three things first:
All that time, it was just metal detector after metal detector.
These new scanners are not a replacement for metal detectors. They only come in play if you repeatedly set off the metal detector, and fail to produce the goods that set of the metal detector.
I'm sure a 14 year old girl would hate it even more.
And the reason for a 14 year old girl to hate it more is....?
-- Abigail
And your suggestion how to get security without trading in your privacy is....?
-- Abigail
You shouldn't take a job if that involves doing things you seriously object to.
-- Abigail
In most cases of political hijacks, none, or only a few of the hostages are killed. You seem to be willing to gamble with the lives of the passengers. I'd say the pilot passing out is a big loss.
-- Abigail
You are. Most people aren't.
-- Abigail
Some people on here have suggested that you simply change the image on the monitor so that bodies don't show up - only the bad stuff does, i.e. metal, thick plastic, etc.
So you're suggesting that the security officers watch a blank screen all day? How do they know when the system isn't working? Sure, you could put a little indicator on the screen showing that a human was passing through, but I don't think it would accomplish the same goal as the alternative: being patted down. And I don't think that having my (unattractive) image on a screen is worse that being patted down.
I agree that the long-term possibilities for this thing are insiduous, though.
What's your damage, Heather?
The X-ray backscatter technology barely views under the skin. The Secure 1000 requires front and back scans, with a lot of surface detail.
Several months ago Slashdot discussed this from American Security. But this low-power X-ray scans through the body, so bones are visible while skin is less visible.
It's the right to fly, period. Airline searches are mandated by the FAA - you cannot fly on any airline today without them. This is a government search, not something where libertarians can say "go do business with another airline".
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
You can choose NOT to use the airline's services. People tend to forget that they don't have a right to every single convenience that some company has to offer.
The question I have is do they get a Cinematic 3D view, or just a foggy outline. Do they get to laugh at this big splotchy birthmark on my butt, or just the big wart on my left toe?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
If we weren't so prudish as a specie, this would be a great idea. I really wouldn't care if a security guard gets to see me "naked" on a black and white scanner as I walk into the airport boarding terminal. Especially if it speeds up airport check-in, and increases the safety of air travel. I don't see what is so "private" about one's skin. Medical records and such may be private, but I don't know about you, but I often use *imagination* to "see" what people look like under their clothes... and I don't think that's an invasion of anyone's privacy...
Logical restrictions as to what you can and can't bring on an airplane make sense, for many reasons.
I too am VERY opposed to illegal search and seisure, but the fact of the matter is that it's not your airplane. A street is a public place, an airplane is privately owned property.
Would you let random strangers on your private jet without knowing what they were bringing on board?
This is great! Finally I'll get over my disappointment from the x-ray glasses I bought from the back of a DC comic book. This is technology that'll see the fast track to miniturization. Does it have the stigmatism Superman suffered at not being able to see through lead linned undies?
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
its called function creep you twit. By the time you get to protest it, it will be so common place that there will be no one to back you up. The war will be won or lost *now*..not when it becomes mandatory.
I'm 14 years old, and I would really, really, REALLY not like that.
I'm sure a 14 year old girl would hate it even more.
A lot of children go by plane. I was 8 years old when I was put on a plane alone. I went from Butte, MT-Portland-LAX and back again. I also went with my brother from Medford-SFO-LAX. All that time, it was just metal detector after metal detector.
I personally would refuse to fly if they had to put me through that thing.
This could be good in that it may stop more high-jacks, but I don't really like
the thought of someone I don't know looking at my naked body.
I mean what is some sick pervert gets that job, so he can get his jollies of our naked body scans.
I don't think it's necessary. There are better ways of checking for weapons.
Well, Millivision is already selling a thingie that can detect your heartbeat through a wall, and the cops are making drug busts based on through-the-wall infrared images, so I guess the future is here.
As for the "private property" argument, you're full of shit. Airport searches are imposed by governments. They were not voluntarily initiated by the airlines, although I admit that the airlines don't really seem to mind. I suspect that competition would quickly produce some non-searching airlines if the searches weren't required.
The "private jet" analogy is just silly. I wouldn't let random strangers in my car, either, but nobody searches you when you get on a city bus.
On the upside, private, er, collectors can now have their own... whatever you want to call it.
If that can be called an upside.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Newspeak-to-English Translation: When the government initiates a crackdown intended to target those people, it's good; when the government initiates a crackdown intended to target my people, it's bad.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Absolutely.
To prove it, simply ask the question: If the armed forces of Scanneria were to invade the United States with the agenda of replacing the current government with an otherwise identical regime in which there were no Fourth Amendment, and one hundred (to pick a number considerably larger than the average annual death toll from airline terrorism) American soldiers died repelling the invasion, should these soldiers be regarded as fallen heroes or as suckers whose lives were thrown away for no good reason?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The government wants its (allegedly) protective measures to advance as fast as possible while freezing our personal protective measures (e.g. crypto regs, to use an example familiar to most /.ers). If permitted to do so, the government would create a situation in which technological advance functioned as a one-way ratchet, expanding its own power with no countervailing offsets favoring the individual.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Yes, and if we lived in a world where government agents were generally watched for abuses and punished severely (much more severely than a private citizen committing a similar offense, in recognition of their higher level of responsibility) when they perpetrated them, there would be a case to be made.
In summary, get back to me when Lon Horiuchi is making big boulders into little pebbles.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
...most people deserve neither.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Here's something for you to think about:
Since when has safety been a "right?" The last time I checked, the Constitution made no mention of it. Yes, the Constitution comes into play here as nearly every airport in the country is a government-owned facility and is therefore subject to the restrictions on its powers provided by the Constitution. In particular, the Fourth Amendment would be of some relevance here.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Honestly!
My constitution (I'm Canadian) and the US constitution both say lots of things about what freedoms I / you are guaranteed - flight is not one of them!
Lots of people seem to be making mistakes as to the overinterpretation of their rights these days - the right to 'communication', the right to drive, the right to 'health care' (yes, I know its there in my constitution, it doesn't mean I believe it should be there), the right to fly, etc. The airlines / government has the ability, in deed, the duty, to protect its passengers from terrorism. That's what we're primarily talking about here - this sort of system probably won't find a comdom full of coicane in the large intestine.
Here's a nice scenario for everyone who hates this thing - someone smuggles a plastic gun / explosive device / whatever onto a plane that could have been detected by this machine, but for false civil liberties concerns, the machine wasn't used. How would you feel if your significant other / children / yourself was on that plane?
Cyano
Don't like my sig? I don't either.
I don't know if I like the idea of random security people getting a peep show all day long. I think that's an invasion of privacy. Can't they at least fiddle with the contrast or something so the body outline and detail goes away, and just leaves bright areas for metal, etc?
And as for the comment the libertarian mentioned about people not having to use a service...well I'm pretty libertarian and would agree with you, except that there are some things that are so ubiquitous and important that it becomes the government responsibility to overlook. Transportation is one of those things. If everybody in the us "decides" individually not to use airplanes, although it may be logical, there will be serious ramifications.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'll go out on a limb and say that this device used in the described method is OK with me. If I had a choice (ha!) between two airlines, one using it as described and one not having it, I might actually choose the airline with the scanner, in case it ever comes down to being scanned versus being felt up by minimum-wagers.
Personally, I don't have any problem with surveillance in a place as long as I'm made aware of it before I enter that place.
However, we should question why exactly we have to have such high security in airports, and why Americans have to be so security-conscious outside of the US. Maybe a foreign "policy" (in very loosest sense of the word) that involves sanctioning or bombing every country that sufficiently irritates our leaders has something to do with it...
Excellent point.
There's no contradiction between a love of freedom and deciding to submit to consensual security measures in certain places. Even mandatory security measures that are carefully designed and harshly watched for abuse are proper if they protect our lives and liberties...otherwise there's really no point to a government, now is there?
It just means we have work to do.
Those pictures are very detailed (and this tech is only a year or two old). Expect it to show scars and moles in a few years. But what's really scary to me is this: How long before it can show people through the walls of their homes? It's the ultimate law enforcement wet dream: all houses made out of transparent material! Reminds me of Perry Metzger's privacy parable:
http://www.clock.org/~fair/opinion/parable.html
I enjoyed reading your excellent rebuttal. I hope you were reading a y2k compliant book and wake up to find there's still a world where we can discuss the freedom we both care about. Happy new year!
Yes, I do mean this.
We focus upon the immediate damage that terrorists do -- people killed, families shattered, buildings and airplanes destroyed. While these actions are horrible, the damage we then do to our free society as a result is greater. A terrorist, by harming a few hundred people, can cause a country of millions to willingly allow erosion of its liberties.
The "war on drugs" has had a similar effect upon us. A urine test is now de rigueur for most of corporate America. In the absense of the perceived threat, who would submit to such an invasion of privacy? As with airport security, we cause this injury to our free society willingly, because we, as a society, think that the disease is worse than the cure.
Just because we think that these measures are necessary does not mean that they are benign.
The true cost of terrorism isn't what the terrorist do to you. It is what you willingly do to your own freedoms and liberties as a result of terrorism.
And which gender and body type are _you_?
It's not something everybody goes through, but something they offer as an alternative to the full body search. It is certainly less intrusive than that. So relax!
/. effect will fix this now.
I just traveled California - Sweden and back, and went through plenty metal detectors everywhere. I have a belt buckle that always triggers the alarm...
I must say the american detector staff are much more rude and incompetent that the europeans. The Europeans don't boss you around and treat you like a criminal.
There. That feels better. I'm sure the
before walking through the gate? I can't help but believe I would be arrested if I stood at the little conveyor belt for the x-ray machine and dropped my clothes on to it before going through the metal detector.
I little background before I rant. In a previous lifestyle, as a helicopter pilot for the Army, I worked hand in hand with the DEA and the US Marshalls in several extended counter-narcotics missions. My security clearance was, ummmmm, "above average." During a long weekend off, I made a 30 minute trip across the US-Mexican border, for the specific purpose of buying some gifts of alcohol for friends (I'm a nondrinker). Crossing back into the US, I spent 6 and 1/2 hours being searched, questioned, and watching my vehicle get dismantled because I "raised some red flags" (primarily the bumper stickers protesting US foreign policy in Central America on my '72 Volkswagon camper with the tie-dye curtains). This experience has me a little skeptical of the profiling decisions made by security employees.
I see no effective difference between being exposed to someone looking at a monitor image of me and them looking at my naked body. If I have volunteered to be seen that way, no problem. If it is without my consent, big problem.
I am more offended by the idea individual profiling, which is nothing more than the subjective interpretations of individuals, than I am of the idea of every single person being forced to walk through security naked.
I want security, but I am unwilling to trade my privacy and dignity away blindly to get it. And if you are squeemish about seeing my bony ass saunter through a metal detector au natural, please accept that I am just as squeemish about having someone take that same view of me with high tech equipment.
Dave
"The scanner can display hidden guns, knives, batteries, digital watches, explosive materials and packages of drugs secreted under clothing."
Digital watches??? What some people will smuggle. Shudder.
And with today's emphasis on gay-rights, etc. you can't always be sure you're comfortable with someone of the same sex looking at you.
... (or upsetting).
That's not an anti-gay thing, that's just "person who could be attracted to you looking at you naked" is embarassing
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Ever field-stripped a weapon?
Take a modern 80% plastic weapon with a metal barrel and put the barrel in your carry-on. You tell me if they recognise it (especially with the sights removed -- you won't need them much in a hijacking; you don't want to actually have to shoot).
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The key to my idea was that anything not recognised as human would be put on screen for "scroll-through" by the human operator. They wouldn't see a picture of you naked; they'd see pictures of all the parts of you with non-human bits (hope you didn't get a big piercing somewhere silly).
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The whole idea of open-sourcing the software is that although one person can look for loopholes to use, another can find the same loopholes to fix. Thus the L0PHT.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
1) I am not a gun expert.
2) Here is more information about FUD about purely plastic weapons
3) I had both of these in mind when I wrote my response -- my main point was the proposal that (hardware/etc.) hackers start thinking about drafting better proposals for airlines.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I think your statement that "There is nothing we can do to prevent a determined individual or group from commiting an act of terrorism" is pretty close to the truth.
What we need to realise (as the army often does when evaluating war) is that there _will_ be casualties. After realising that, we decide where the minimal point is; do we need to add full display body scanners? Well, do they prevent said determined persons? No. Will they prevent drug smugglers? Maybe. Are there other ways to prevent drug smuggling? Yes. Do we need the scanners? No. (Hypothetically speaking).
What we also need is more universal use of known terrorist face shots being forced on customs / security officials for recognition. Its not like the CIA/CSIS/FBI/etc. doesn't have a good list of desciptions with photos. Sure, its not complete, but this would help a lot.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
This is old news. I don't remember when I first heard this; might have been summer, 1999. They were testing this technology at two major airports as I remember it.
;-)
What really bothers me is that there are now concealed weapons that can't be found with metal detectors (non-metalic guns and knives, for instance). What 'hackers' need to do is work out a way to properly secure airplanes the way they've been giving information on how to secure networks. Unlike network administrators, I think the average airport is actually concerned about security and would take suggestions if we put some good ones together.
We can't always just say "this is a breach of my privacy" when the other side is saying "it's that or getting hijacked!" We won't get any public support that way.
Lets throw around some real ideas on how to detect contraband, etc. without (excessively) invading peoples' privacy.
Note: I say 'excessively' because if you have a rod in your back and didn't want anyone to know, they'll find out if they're in line with you at the airport. This is pretty unavoidable. However, having to be "naked-ish" for the security guard isn't great.
Idea: if we used the same technology with an AI system that recognised non-human items and displayed those areas on the security screen? Open source of course
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
According to the Customs Commissioner the only people that will see you on the scanner will be of the same sex. Why should this make me feel any better?
But wait, if I'm unhappy with the idea of some dude checking out the outline of my unit on the scanner, I can opt to be felt up by him instead. Yeah, lovely choice...
numb
Now see, if the machine's being watched by some hot chick, this ain't bad (for me anyways), but if it's some guy.... ewww eww eww ewww ewwww!!!!!!!!
Not something I wanna think about.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
Anyway, before I lost my driver's licence (proper photo id) they "searched" my laptop computer by passing this chemically wetted cloth
over it. Didn't even open the lid to see if it worked or if it was really contained nothing but bomb materials.
In 1989 I passed through several airports carying a strange looking computer the size of a large suitcase. It was an industrial looking machine with VME slots in the front. Visually, it stuck out like a sore thumb compared to the things other passengers were carying, and its all metal enclosure made it opaque to the XRay machines. But even so, none of the security people gave it so much as a second glance, or even asked what it was. Granted, it wasn't anything dangerous and it was nice to travel unimpeded, but it still bothered me that the security folks expressed no visible curiosity at all.
---
Peace,
vilvoy
The movies usually give us a GOOD idea what to expect in the future when technology is concerned.
YEah Baybay!
-Oy Vey
First, of all you've been watching too many episodes of the X-Files. It's turned your brain into a vegetable.
You say, but X-Files is about the gov't being evil and has nothing to do with terrorism.
That's not the point.
Look at your post:
Why are they infringing on the right of people to kill hundreds in senseless slaughter? Those terrorists should be allowed their privacy to make weapons.
What the hell does privacy have to do with weapons or mass murder? Why not privacy so no one knows you have 3 nipples?
Having your body shown naked is a matter of privacy. Finding guns, knives, drugs, bombs, etc. is a matter of secrecy.
To detect concealed weapons you only need to see outlines.
The fear here is that people are being treted as objects to whatever degree, which goes against the true purpose of privacy, to encourage respect between people. How much easier is it going to be for a disgruntled non-terrorist to plan some shit if people are not respected as human beings but seen as objects?
I really wish society would stop blaming inanimate objects, I just might to do something...
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Any object not traceable from the ground up to the head is not human end of story.
The computer itself could do the check.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Do you have the right to take a car where you want to go and if you disagree with the National Highway Security Measures then they are impeding on your rights?
Talk about offtopic (privacy rights, dumbass, there's no general rights without a context) but anyway. You're confusing rights and measures. (Safety and Security, you're so full of buzzwords you can't tell the difference Safety on road Security in neighborhoods. There's a very important difference.) And to make it worse you're confusing them the same way a lot of boneheads confuse censorship and trashing spam, Only you're doing it in reverse.
Responsibility in no way goes against rights. I can go anywhere, it's just how.
Do you have the right to walk to where you want to go and if you disagree with the Neighborhood Safe Streets Security Measures then they are impeding on your rights?
Mmmmmm, national state of emergency and Martial Law BABY!
Are you getting any of this? I doubt it, it's probably over your head.
You're talking to someone who lived in Romania for the first 8 years of his life with all the dubious benefits of Communism, stool pigeons, and constant gov't inspired paranoia. Go home, suck on a lollipop and fucking wake up.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
First, I really don't see what the big deal is with this. It should not feel any different than when a doctor has to see you for a physical, except the guys won't have to "cough"
I feel more sorry for the people who have to watch these screens. I mean, do YOU want to be watching the screen when some fat greasy people walk through?
Maybe this will be more incentive for the overly obese and fat to slim down a little.
five fingers make a fist amalgamate and resist
I value personally freedom as much as most people, but just like everything else in the world, this is a compromise. You need to give up a small amount of freedom so everyone can be safe. Not every device can be objected to because sometime down the line it could misused. In that case we should object to computers, because they could be used to gather information about us, used in devices such as these, and used to hack into OUR computers. There are battles that need to be fought. If something like this ever starts to becomes commonplace in society, then yes we should fight because it is being misused. If you can't walk down the street without a device like this being used one you, yes we should fight, because it's being misused. As long as the device is being used properly (as in to keep everyone safe, and to catch people breaking the law {whether you like the laws or not, it is the job of the police to catch people breaking them, until the law is changed}) then there is no reason to protest this.
Our protective measures need to advance as the rest of technology advances. There are guns being designed that are completely ceramic (yes, I realize the plastic Glock is a myth, and these aren't new guns available yet). If we don't advance out security as fast as the technology, it will become useless. One of the things we give up to live in a civilized society is some personal freedom.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Everybody will be fighting to be hall moniters. "No ma'am, it's ok. I can see your hall pass just fine." :)
We eat the pig and then together we BURN!!!
Strip searches are uncommon because people tend to complain, file lawsuits, etc. Since fewer people will sue over being 'scanned', scanning will happen more and more often.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
It seems that evvery new security device at Airports is the answer to everything; metal detectors, X-ray scans of carryons, the bomb sniffers, etc.
What I'd like to know is how often these devices succesfully catch the criminals they are intended to detect. Of the past few hostage situations, did they pass through metal detectors with their guns? Are ceramic knives and guns being used to kill airline passangers all the time? My guess is *no*.
Of course the company that really doesn't have anything new to offer won't want to provide such numbers, would they? They just want the FAA to mandate its use, which should come in about 3 years...
I'm a nudist, I'm always looking for ways to take my clothes off in public
Blender And Linux Fan
Okay, this is probably one of those inevitable technologies the utility of which to the security forces makes its adoption -- either covert or overt -- a done deal. I can see this being a good thing in that we have a health-ethstetic problem with obesity in this country. Now, if this technology becomes ubiquitous and everyone knows they are being looked at, in the buff, perhaps people will pay more attention to their bodies' health and appearance, which go hand in hand. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, nakedness will become less taboo. I mean, if we are all being scoped out buck naked anyway, why bother wearing much clothing at all if both the temperature and the humididty are in the 90's as it is here in Chicago in the summertime. I like it.
"Being Irish, he possessed an abiding sense of tragedy which sustained him through brief episodes of joy." -W. B.
"getting frisked always makes me feel like a bad guy on COPS"
Well getting blown up feels worse.
Being stuck as a hostage on a place also sucks (just ask the guy who was stabbed on the plane in India because he had the nerve to take off his blindfold).
I'm still working on a clever footer.
I'm completely confused by this story. What's the big deal about finding out where the contours of someone's body are with a scanner? I can deduce approximately where the contours of your body lie just by looking at your clothing. Should my brain be banned? (Doubtless there are many who would say yes.) Anyone can scan me any time.
-- SIGFPE
You and I all know that if Herr Clinton goes to an airport, he ain't gonna have to go through one of these. But why not? I think that these scanners should be hooked up at Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court so that we can see our *leaders* for what they really are. A simple web site which carried feeds from the government scans could give every American a sense that their government was secure. Hey, if Strom Thurmond or Janet El Reno are packing heat, don't you want to know about it?
Windows is going the way of phlogiston...
Thanks, but is that all? I mean...don't women walk through those sensors, too? :)
While firearms do have plastic pieces there is plenty of metal in a firearm to be detected in a functioning metal detector. Even a such firearm disassembled will detectable in the xray machine.
If you still believe otherwise, you've been duped by the mass media.
it really isn't really that invasive, from reading the article. and after all you can say 'i want to be frisked' instead. if you don't want to stand in front of this scanner, then you can elect to just get a regular frisking.
now, if they were secretly installing these in doorways or something, so that you were scanned without knowing it and unwillingly, then i'd be upset. but the threat of terrorism is obviously real, and we need to take the correct countermeasures. I bet i could smuggle a metallic handgun onto a plane, if I had enough time and money =)
personally, i think i might possibly elect for this over frisking, if only because it is less private (well, it is more private, but it isn't overtly so. you're fully clothed and no one touches you, so you don't feel as uncomfortable as in a frisking).
this would all be simpler if we weren't so uptight about personal space (ie: touching means standing on the same carpet).
Then again, I could be wrong.
why? it isn't like most people could just download the software, fool around with it, and then try it out on their own body scanner. to see if stuff works you'd probably need a $125000 piece of equipment...ouch!
I guess there could be a few benefits, but they might not outweigh the threat of people looking at your software and just (for instance) designing new guns that wouldn't be recognized. best to keep this one closed source, imo.
Then again, I could be wrong.
to the amount of different designs of object you can have the scanner look for. And guns can be built into nearly anything, especially as we get better at making small bits of metal and propellants get more potent. you really don't need more than a .38 to hold up an airplane, because you can aim well enough against unarmed attackers to kill them with a rather small caliber, and they most likely won't attack you anyway.
I bet I could fit a pistol into a slightly outofdate laptop (you know, where the CD-ROM or floppy drive goes? just glue the little filler plastic onto the back and slide it in). For that matter, I could probably fit a submachinegun into a laptop if i didn't feel like playing solitaire while I waited on the plane...but it's better not to try that sort of thing because you're more likely to get caught.
Anyway, back from blatantly plotting to commit terrorism.
Open sourcing software is a good idea, I know that, and it is great for debugging. But the problem is that the time between "bug found" and "bug fixed and patch deployed to airports, patch installed, patch working" is enough to hijack an airplane. I'm not saying that it's incredibly likely that open sourcing this stuff would make huge gaps in security, but it could happen.
Then again, I could be wrong.
that the airlines share the security hardware at the airport, so you have to use an airport where they aren't using the hardware, rather than selecting a different airline. Same deal with the bomb sniffing machines, etc.
I've been curious about the "full external contours" of my co-worker's bodies. I wonder if these will be for sale in a couple of years?
:-)
I bet they'll be real popular in high school. Girl watching will be replaced by girl scanning. Ahhh, progress.
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Think of how many perverts would jump on the chance to see other people naked. Granted many of them would be gay (because men watch men and women watch women), but the airport will take anyone they can get.
Sorry for the dry reply, but Benny hill died a few years ago, leaving his fortune to two wemen, one of them paralysed (as far as I recall, I am a bit hazy about this.
The other (universal) problem is the basic baggage scanner. A friend of mine work for a company that makes them. They were trying to create software that replaces the operator because test show that the current system allows approximately 50% of the 'test' packages to pass undetected. The error rate of these operator/inspectors is truly alarming.
Honestly, I'm a member of the ACLU, and so I'm not unconcerned about civil liberties such as the right to privacy. But when issues like this arise, it always seems that an ACLU rep or Jon Katz or someone else is always ready to stand up and say 'Damn you! How dare you offer us a different option than we had before! How dare you offer us a new choice that may not be to everyone's liking! We demand Utopia, dammit! It's not enough just to offer us a possible improvement, and even give us the choice of whether or not to use it; it's perfection or nothing!' I'm a realist; I compare the proposed new system to what we have now. But every time an issue like this comes up, it seems to be an issue because it gets compared to the perfect world we all wish we lived in, and comes up short against that unrealistic standard.
I've read the comments suggesting that the libertarian thing to do is to boycott all airlines that are now offering this new technology as an alternative to the frisk. It makes me wonder why it wasn't the libertarian thing to do to boycott all those airlines that were frisking in the first place. And it makes me wonder whether libertarians actually get on planes feeling much better knowing that no one on the plane has been searched for guns or bombs.
My only real problem with the system as it's described is that they automatically assign someone of the same sex to be the one looking at the contours of your naked body. I think we should have the choice of having someone of the opposite sex scoping us out. Hell, if I get on the plane suspecting that the woman at the monitor got a cheap thrill out of seeing me naked, I probably won't have stopped smiling before we touch down again. ^_^
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Crossing the border from France to Switzerland. I didn't want to argue with the hick border guard with a machine gun. Wasn't so bad. I did wish I could have got a wood 'cos that might have freaked him a bit. If only they'ed looked in our luggage they woulda scored a hit but as the point of the search is to judge your reaction rather than find anything I feel smug about it.
.oO0Oo.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I'd LOVE to have one of those for our Y2K party!
No Zen is good zen
Your partially correct, But remember, this whole saga started because of the loonies complaining about invasion of their rights, which goes back to what you said, "you fly, you play by the rules"
I hear that this system is being funded by Igor from Voyeurweb and Red Clouds, in exchange for any scans of "sweet chicks". Personally I'd rather see some more of those Wearable-PC models, but I'm just a geek I guess... :)
So when I have to walk through the dumb metal detectors, and they beep at me and make me check my pockets again, its a little annoying. Then again, when they board huge sections at once, and I'm in the back of that section and stand in the aisle while morons fights with their carry on baggage, that is annoying too. But the first one gives me the safety and thus the freedom to travel across the country in a few hours, and I consider it a benifit, not an intrusion.
Again, I understand the philosophy, especially at its more extreme examples. If I was living under effective marshal law, as has happened in some countries with a more widespread terrorism, I would feel that the balance had shifted too far, perhaps. But where I live, it is not the anti-terrorism actions that take away my freedom. It is the anti-abortion terrorists harrassing my sister when she just wanted her yearly exam, or the bastard who threw a military issue tear gas gernade into a gay pride parade in San Diego, making me wonder if its really worth going to my own march this year.
There is an assumption sometimes that our freedoms can only be taken away by the government. But for me, having my safety protected gives me the freedom to actually implement my rights to speech, to assocciation, to religion (or lack thereof).
Just a thought for the new year. Now I'm probably gonna read myself to sleep and hope that the world's still here when I wake up in the morning. Happy New Year.
...will work for Chick tracts...
For the record, in my submission of this story I did discuss the pros and cons, including that this is meant as an alternative to frisks (not necessarily strip searches) and my personal opinion that I would much prefer this to a hands-on frisk. I would have prefered to have my complete comments preserved as the "read more" section, but since its my first submission, I will accept editorial decisions with gratitude. ;-)
...will work for Chick tracts...
Interestingly, the article mentions that the installations are part of a response to complaints of racial and other types of profiling. Specifically, there was an assertion that black women were being singled out for frisks. A thorough frisk I think would be far more upsetting a violation of privacy than someone seeing a grainy image. (and if the earier post was referencing real pictures, its nothing to get turned on about - you might as well be a maniquin.)
...will work for Chick tracts...
''The option is that we can pat you physically,'' he said, ''or you can step in front of this machine. You don't have to do it.'' To insure privacy, no image is recorded or preserved, he said. And the scanner operator is always the same sex as the person under scan, said Kelly." Anyway, don't be so homophobic:)
signature smigmature
- James
Well that's a battle that should probably be fought in the event that it was being made mandatory:) I simply think people are being a bit too-overly concerned about privacy. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem taking off my clothes and doing a little dance for the Security peeps. It's not being recorded, and I'll probably never see these people again for the rest of my life - especially if it's in a city other than my home. Just my two cents though:/
signature smigmature
- James
I believe they would protest it upon being made mandatory for the simple reason that that they themselves would be subjected to it for no reason. That in and of itself would be more than enough to motivate me to protest.
signature smigmature
- James
The Slashdot story's wording makes it seem as though this is mandatory - If you read the Boston Globe story, it's not. Simply an alternative to strip searching. In other words, if you are suspected of having a weapon, or drugs, etc on you, you can either be strip searched the old fashioned way, or with this new and nifty scanner:) Pretty neat technology actually, enough to make you want to take a knife to an airport to get an up-close look:)
signature smigmature
- James
You all want them, here they are:)
signature smigmature
- James
Here's the website of American Science & Engineering, the company that makes the device. They seem to specialize in x-ray inspection equpiment.
In all seriousness, this method won't solve any problems, it will just create different ones. I doubt that this method will prove successful for budy cavity smuggling.
Did some digging around, and found this (rather small) image: http://216.149.33.140/products/lg_bod y02.html. Pretty danged detailed, even at this size. Imagine some security guard staring at a full screen image of yourself. Whee.
I remember reading about something similar, I believe it was gigahertz imaging, four years ago in Science News.
You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco
This is just one of the many reasons I wear a protective cup 24/7. And people call me silly.... Valhalla
Since America has alot of enemies airport security is going to increase. But why activists are upset at this is beyond me.. its not a change in the way travelers are searched. its just an added percaution. You don't have to be scaned you can chose just to be frisked.
Gentleman, you can't fight in here, this is the war room..
who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
Our bodies are currently copyrighted, if only by the lack of technology to copy a person ;)
Seriously, copyright has nothing to do with how something works - it only deals with unlawful duplication. I can read my dad's personally autographed copy of bill gates' latest book (anyone have a clue where I could figure out how much that's worth?) a million times and not break the law, but the instant I duplicate it, I'm breaking the law.
Scanning a person is not "copying" them. It is, however, a privacy issue which is rather blurry under current law (technology always runs faster than the legal system). Honestly, I'd bet that their new system is no less intrusive than an X-ray. Its virtually impossible to, through clothes, get an image that looks like what the person looks like without clothes, due to lighting and texture issues; don't expect any airport pictures of you to be showing up on a net porn site any time soon.
- Rei
When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
Here's an idea: I think we should regard all personal data as copyrighted from the instant reduced to tangible form (our lives). We should then unleash Etoys-like lawyer-hellhounds on anyone who infringes.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
There have been some suggestions on how to remove the view of the body from these scanners. For several reasons, I doubt this would work.
First of all, there is the size issue. Some people have larger bodily parts, be they bellies, legs, or genitals. The scanner would have to dynamically adjust to these, which would be difficult.
One possible solution would be to cut out anything with a skin "texture," as skin apparently returns different information than metal (as seen by it's white color in the pictures, as opposed to the gun's and knife's black). However, this leads to two problems.
The final problem I see with this model is that small illegitimate items, such as drugs or plastic explosives, could probably be smuggled more easily in certain places on the outer body, such as between the penis and scrotum, or in the vaginal opening. Preventing the ability to use these outer-body cavities obviously wouldn't stop drug importation, what with condoms and balloons full of cocaine regularly ingested for that purpose, but there is no need to make the task any easier either.