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.
I can't say it any better.
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 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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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
It's a perfectly acceptable quote, and IMHO one that catches the situation perfectly.
First, you are basically stating that this will save tons of lives. Will it really? Very few people die in hijackings and airline bombings, and this won't do a damn thing about iced wings or engine failure. No disrespect to those who have lost family due to airline violence, but there are a large number of things that have killed far more people.
This is speculation, but I bet far more people die in household accidents yearly than do in airline hijackings and bombings. What is the most likely solution? Why, cameras in homes of course - privacy is of little concern when your child could drown in the tub or you can crack your head changing a light bulb on a vaulted ceiling. This could save lives, right?
Right?
Anyhow, your comment that you were in the military is hardly surprising. Shave the hair off, wear the same clothes, shout the same words, make your bed just so. Conform, conform, conform. While one could make the argument that this is of some use for the military (I wouldn't believe it, but...), most of us civilians would prefer to behave like men and women and not herd animals.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Is having to use the bathroom any more optional than taking a plane somewhere? Do you have the RIGHT to take a plane where you want to go and if you disagree with certain security protocols then they are impeding on your rights?
Too many people think that they are entitled to things...air travel is a luxury, not your god-given right. Drive if you disagree, but I suspect that you will get over it and take the flight.
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.
Is that a piece of semtex or are you just happy to see me? Hmmmmm....
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
What do you do when a male doctor needs to give you a physical?
Go only to female doctors?
The issue, from my point of view, is that a bunch of people have decided they can make me submit to any kind of search they want, any time they want, and justify to them anything I may be carrying, for reasons which are more or less totally bogus.
These scanners are nothing fundamentally new, but they extend the already-evil airport search regime.
Two problems:
It doesn't work. Airport security, including this system, exists primarily to make people feel safe. It has limited effect in actually making them be safe. Even if these systems couldn't usually be evaded even in the airports (and they can), all they would do is to cause people to do their evil deeds in the hundreds of other places that have equivalent crowds and less security... many of which places aren't securable in any reasonable way, so you can't just "fix the problem" by adding more security there.
It's obnoxious and not worth it, even if it did work. I come from a pretty radical place on this... as far as I'm concerned, all customs searches are unacceptable, as are all routine airport searches. Think about it... if they can search you at the airport, why shouldn't they be able to search you as you're walking down the street? What is the real difference?
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.
Here we see one of the standard problems with faith in government power -- its workings are always presented on the assumption that it will be wielded in a just and responsible manner. Skepticism toward this assumption is never addressed by sound argument (perhaps because no such argument has ever survived collision with historical fact), but by caricature of the skeptic's position (as in the opening paragraphs of KahunaBurger's post).
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Because it has proven to be a generally ineffective strategy. That's the only factor that has ever abolished a bad idea in the long run.
/.
/. 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.
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?
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.
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
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
Just think of it as evolution in action
(sorry, not my line. Larry Niven, Oath of Fealty
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
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"
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.
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.
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 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.
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