Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Security

Airport Screeners could see X-rated X-rays 1407

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the sea-monkeys-and-snapping-gum dept.
AdamBomb writes "Think airport security is bad enough already? Well, the Department of Homeland Security is now planning on rolling out new machines that will allow screeners to actually see through clothing. Could be bad news, though privacy advocates are obviously fighting it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airport Screeners could see X-rated X-rays

Comments Filter:
  • by IO ERROR (128968) * <errorNO@SPAMioerror.us> on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:21AM (#12652556) Homepage Journal
    "Well, you'll see basically everything," said Bill Scannell, a privacy advocate and technology consultant. "It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

    It's time to get a job as an airport screener! [opm.gov]

    • by Rolman (120909) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:44AM (#12652703)
      "It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

      I personally don't care if it goes as far as to show nipples. It's already bad enough if it allows you to see through clothes that people specifically put on to cover body parts they're not willing to show in public.

      By that definition, I don't even want them to see through my watch. If they really want to have a look, let them come and ask me to take it off. They already do that with shoes, belts, jackets, hats and whatnot, what's the problem with that?

      I'm a frequent flyer and I'm already pissed with the current security measures. They should make those more efficient before thinking on implementing new equipment under the same, flawed policies.
      • Considering what idiots and wierdos they have working at those security check points makes me worried.

        Now I don't have a problem showing any of my private parts to doctors because:
        1) I know who they are,
        2)I know they are qualified
        3)I can go to a different doctor if I choose to.
        4)I trust that they are doing something to help me. And there is a big difference between that and the security guards at the airport, who probably hardly managed to finish highschool and are just overweight cops stuffed

        • They already have these at London's Heathrow as I recently had to go through one. Every Nth person in the line had to go through. They take you to a seperate are which is blocked off, make you lift up your arms and then move, facing three different directions. There was one operator and the screen was blocked off. The operator is always the gender of the person being scanned. Still I felt very offended for two reasons. First, even though it was enclosed it still made me feel exposed and my personal space vi
          • by Builder (103701) on Friday May 27, 2005 @05:29AM (#12653137)
            It's people like you who let this happen.

            You say 'However, turning down a scan you would probably get a strip search'

            Did you ask what your options were, or did you meekly walk into the mmw radar unit ?

            As for the gender issue, how do you know the person looking at you naked is not gay? How do you know they are NOT getting a sexual kick from this ? How does that possibility make you feel?

            Before you stepped into this thing, did you find out what the long term and medium term effects of millimeter wave radar are ? Are you aware of any public studies that verify the safety of these scans on humans ?

            Or did you meekly go the way the shepherd told you to ?

            Furrfu!
            • by jellomizer (103300) * on Friday May 27, 2005 @06:20AM (#12653286)
              It is not always a case of being meek, It is more of choosing the lesser of inconvenience. Air travel is stressful enough without having to annoy the security guards. So you say no. The chance they will go carry on then is very slim. You will most likely at least put aside so the so the guards manager can come in and determine the next step. That and the number of people behind you that you are inconveniencing who will be pissed off at you thus making your trip that much more miserable. Except for all this extra security in the airport. Why not make the door for the airplane pilot bullet proof and locked from the inside. That alone would have stopped 9-11. Secondly armed guards should be on all public plains in case of crazy guy trying to kill everyone. 3rd to improve security make the seats a little bigger and make sure the people who are traveling are comfortable so you get less of the crazy non-terrorest people who are so fed up about the trip they get violent.
              • by TGK (262438) <Killfile@Nephand u s .Com> on Friday May 27, 2005 @07:29AM (#12653525) Homepage Journal
                Why not make the door for the airplane pilot bullet proof and locked from the inside. That alone would have stopped 9-11

                You don't really think that do you? Seriously, there's traffic between the cockpit and the cabin all the time - so there has to be a communications link

                How many people that you really want flying an airplane would be able to handle the execution of dozens or (on large planes) hudreds of people? How many eight year old girls would it have to have their throats cut before you or anyone else opened the door?

                Sure, it might be the best thing for the country to prevent the hijacking of a plane like that - but the country and any victims in question are far away and poorly defined in our minds. The little girl with a razor blade to her throat standing in a pool of her fathers blood is right outside the door.

                I'm not sure I'd want to be able to condem her to death to save the aircraft. I'm not sure I'd want someone with that level of detachment flying my plane.

                This is hard stuff - and no simple solution is going to solve it.

                • Ok, so you keep her from having her throat slit so that she can survive to die in burning horror as the Hijacker crashes the plane into a target of opportunity? How is this doing anyone a favor.
                • Why not make the door for the airplane pilot bullet proof and locked from the inside. That alone would have stopped 9-11

                  You don't really think that do you? Seriously, there's traffic between the cockpit and the cabin all the time - so there has to be a communications link


                  Call the El Al [elal.co.il], Israel's national airline and ask them how it's been working out. All their planes have locked and bulletproof doors to the cockpit and plain clothes law enforcement on each flight. There have been many hijacking attemp
              • by oren (78897) on Friday May 27, 2005 @10:26AM (#12654816)
                Why not make the door for the airplane pilot bullet proof and locked from the inside... Secondly armed guards should be on all public plains in case of crazy guy trying to kill everyone.

                Funny, both these precautions are routine in El-Al flights. There was one El-Al hijacked plane. In 1968. Never since. And it has been tried [thisistravel.co.uk], and foiled by these exact measures.

                That said...

                First, it costs.

                Having a few highly trained armed guards in each and every flight... this isn't cheap. Now imagine you are a commercial American airline. Who would pay for that? Locking the door to the cockpit only works as long as people on both side of the door are willing to die - or see others die - to keep it closed. Now, imagine that was a prequisite to being hired as air crew in a commercial Americal airline. Would you find enough employees? How much extra would you need to pay to those you do find?

                Second, security meausures in El-Al flights are even tighter than the new security routines in American flights since 9/11. The main difference is that El-Al security is free to focus on effectiveness as opposed to political correctness. This means that profiling is used heavily to achieve the same level of security with the minimal hassle.

                I believe that for legal reasons, American security is barred from only giving the 3rd degree treatment to an angry-looking 25 year old Arab-descent man who has spent several years in Afganistan with no family in the USA, while ignoring a 70-year old grandmother flying with her grandchildren back to their parents from Disney world. The current solution is to give everyone the 3rd degree - so you see the man, the grandmother and her grandsons taking off their shoes together so some poor soul can sniff them for explosives.

                In an Israeli airport, the grandmother would sail through security, while the man's luggage would go under a microscope while he is being thoroughly questioned to see if he really is what he claims to be. And before someone draws the racist card - when I flew from Athents to Israel in the late 70s, everyone went through the same 3rd degree, without any exceptions. And today, if you are a 25-year old WASP idealistic female who has spent the last 6 months volunteering in the occupied territories and is carrying some presents from her new found boyfriend there to his family back in Europe, she'd get the same 3rd degree. And it just might save her life, even if she's newly pregnant by him (what, you thought someone willing to blow up a plane full of innocent people would care? Guess again - this did happen [bearpit.net]).

                At any rate, anyone who complains about how harsh the new security checks is should read the enraged accounts of people who raised too many "suspect" flags in an Israeli airport. The reason the country puts up with it is because it works, and the public is indifferent to the hardship suffered by a negligible fraction of mostly foreign passengers. You have to admire the fact the American people put up with this "equal mistreatment". Good for you, really. I just wonder how long you can keep it up. It is a horribly inefficient way of going about it.

                I think it is great that once the Americans have been put in this awkward position, they are throwing technology (that is, money) at the problem. For example, see explosive sniffers are now standard, which saves a lot of "open your luggage, please". Having machines that see through clothes would be a great way to give everyone equal treatment while minimizing the hassle. As for privacy issues - even assuming the pictures are playboy-perfect (which they aren't), what exactly is the problem? Believe it or not, but we are all rather alike.

                I predict you wouldn't even see whoever is looking at the pictures (for an additional $0.02, it would be a "she" for women and a "he" for men - there, feel better?). They'd be off at some booth to the side, so all you will experience is "stand here for a second, please... bzzzz... thank you, move along, nothing to see here".
                • by GSloop (165220) <networkguru AT sloop DOT net> on Friday May 27, 2005 @11:53AM (#12655802) Homepage
                  Nice troll, BTW.

                  Sure, I can stop every rapist too.

                  Ok, sure, I get to violate the rights of a lot of other people, and lock up lots of innocent people, but I can stop every rapist.

                  IMHO, Israel does the same thing, perhaps to a less extreme degree than my example.

                  Problem is, we have a society that predicates itself on treating people equally. We don't (or at least our ideals/constitution say we shouldn't) single out particular individuals for "special" treatment, good or bad - unless we have reliable information that this specific individual poses a significant risk.

                  Likewise, we'd rather let a few murderers go if getting every one of them requires locking up (or executing) innocent people too.

                  Look how many false "confessions" there are. You think airport screening is any different?

                  Issue is, that super invasive security measures at an airport will simply force those people to attack at another weak spot. You guys have done real well against the suicide bombers too huh? (Oh, I forgot, you are moving on and violating a whole lot of more people by putting up your "security" fence now...)

                  So, with enough loss of rights, privacy and drag-netting a lot of innocent people I can stop all crime too. However, I'd really rather not exist in such a society. It's only a matter of time till you yourself become one of the "suspects" and life really sucks then.

                  No thanks.

                  This is the real reason we have a government/republic that's designed with inefficiencies that are supposed to guarantee equal treatment of all individuals. (And yes, I know full well it's not actually that well done in practice - and it anguishes me on a regular basis...)

                  Cheers,
                  Greg
                • by Jherek Carnelian (831679) on Friday May 27, 2005 @12:57PM (#12656440)
                  while ignoring a 70-year old grandmother flying with her grandchildren back to their parents from Disney world.

                  In an Israeli airport, the grandmother would sail through security,


                  Sounds like a loophole to me.

                  Consider the grandmother who has had all of her children killed by the Israeli army and their home bulldozed. She is too old to work, her life and the lives of her grandchildren depended on the support of her now deceased kids. Without them, her grandchildren will probably end up on the Palestinian street and dead before they reach 20, she'll be dead in two years because she can no longer afford the treatment for her diabetes.

                  They've got motive and with the help of Hamas they've got the means and enough false id to pass as jewish. They can sail right through those profile-based security checks carrying enough sarin in mickey-mouse thermoses to kill everyone on that plane in minutes.

                  Profiling works by focusing your attention on people with certain characteristics and by necessity relaxes your attention on the people who don't fit the profile. As soon as your enemy figures out how to avoid your profile, his job gets 10x easier.
      • by houghi (78078) on Friday May 27, 2005 @06:09AM (#12653258)
        specifically put on to cover body parts they're not willing to show in public.

        Not willing to show? The law forces me to cover up the things I am willing to show.
  • by tehshen (794722) <tehshen@gmail.com> on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:22AM (#12652559)
    We don't see any saucy pictures. Just so you know.
  • by Adrilla (830520) * on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:23AM (#12652566) Homepage
    1. Where do I apply
    2. How do I get put in charge of the 'Hot Chick' section

    and oh yeah, something about "my rights are being taken away and freedom is dyin...blah blah blah"
  • by Ledora (611009) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:23AM (#12652569)
    Have you seen regular people in society? like 1/3 of people are overweight and many people are OLD..... yeah it would be nice when a euro female soccer team comes thru but UGH I would not want to see the normal 40something soccer MOM (or dad)!
    • Re:Regular people (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Seminal (698722) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:41AM (#12652691) Journal
      Have you seen regular people in society? like 1/3 of people are overweight and many people are OLD..... yeah it would be nice when a euro female soccer team comes thru but UGH I would not want to see the normal 40something soccer MOM (or dad)!

      Do you know how many websites there are that are exclusive content for mature women, or grandpa's fucking? You might not like the scooer mom, but check out how many MILF websites there are. Lots of people like these 30-50 year old women in pantyhose.

      Don't be suprised if these x-ray naked pictures make it to the web. If someone can steal Star Wars Revenge of the Sith, before it made it to theaters, then someone will get these pics on the web.

  • by Dr.Opveter (806649) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:23AM (#12652570)
    What if this means we won't be padded down anymore?!
  • sample pic (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:24AM (#12652579)
    Here's a sample of what they see:

    http://www.freedomisslavery.info/index.php?p=1138 [freedomisslavery.info]

  • by madsenj37 (612413) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:25AM (#12652583)
    Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
  • by Mister Impressive (875697) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:27AM (#12652591)
    When can we expect the retail eye-wear version of this technology to be mass produced?

    </obligatory>
  • This is old (Score:5, Informative)

    by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy@nOSpam.tpno-co.org> on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:27AM (#12652600) Homepage
    Maybe not a repost on slashdot, but I remember reading about this in Time over a year ago ( 2 years ago? ).

    This is old tech, and while privacy is a concern, I'd rather have someone checkin' out my jimmah if it means weapons have a lesser chance of getting on the plane.

    As an asside: I don't think tighter passenger security is where we should be headed: I think we should lock down the air planes. The cockpit simply isn't accessable from the main carrage of the plane, there would literally be a seperate entrance externally. Further, I favor undercover armed guards on every flight. Police officers, if you will.

    I think this would go a long way in making our flights more secure, without having to resort to privacy encroachment methods.
    • by skomes (868255)
      Might be kind of tough for the flight attendant to serve the pilots their meals on long distance flights by traversing the exterior of the plane.
    • Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

      --Abraham Lincoln
    • Re:This is old (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DrXym (126579)
      Privacy is a concern? It's not just a concern, it's completely discarded. And for little gain, since anyone savvy about such measures would shift their attack to some place else.

      For example I shudder when I see the huge snaking queues caused by heightened security at most airports. It would be absolutely trivial to take out a hundred people and severely injure several hundred more in any major US airport. How so? Wait for some popular holiday (e.g. this weekend) and walk in the front door with a suitcase

  • Two sides (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FidelCatsro (861135) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .orstacledif.> on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:27AM (#12652601) Journal
    The human in me thinks this is a twisted invasion of privacy , the man side thinks woo naked chicks sweet job.
    However the human side wins out here , this is totaly unacceptable . they will have to have seperat entrances for men and woman as people are uncomfy with a member of th oposite sex seeing them in the all together(not everyone mind you) .I know its wrong and a body is just a body but that is still not a belive that everyone shares and people have issues about this.
    If i want sweaty security gaurds seeing me in the buff i will get a website for it , I don't want to have this foist upon me by over zelous national security.
  • by John Seminal (698722) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:29AM (#12652609) Journal
    The city of boston started with 1000 camera's for the convention, promising it was only for the convention, then deciding to keep them.

    The city of chicago followed next, installing 3000 camera's. They can look inside cars. They can tell if you're smoking a joint. They can tell if you're talking to a prostitute.

    The city of naperville is installing fingerprint machines in order for people to use the library.

    The United States Congress is pushing for a national ID card, with biometrics.

    Lets face it, people will soon be tracked, it will be impossible to just slip into a city. The police will know who you are and where you are at all times.

    They will soon take your DNA, without your agreement. Anyone hear about DNA dragnets being used in towns? And it is easy for them to get it. They pull you over in your car, they take you down to the station with a bogus charge. They take your picture and fingerprints. They then tell you, we'll we made a mistake, sorry, you're free to go. And as you leave, they vacum up the hair that fell out off your head. Now they have all the information, and there is nothing you can do about it.

    So what if they can see you naked? Big deal. That should be the least of your worries, that Officer Friendly can see your wee-wee. What would worry me more is he can keep a tab on what your reading at the library.

    Databases are here to stay, and in the future your whole life will exist in a database, somewhere.

    It sucks, but that is the preperation for the revolution. If you're not willing to work 50 hours a week just to cover your rent, you will be labled a terrorist. Cuba is waiting for all who complain.

    • They will soon take your DNA, without your agreement.

      This is already the case in California [smartvoter.org]. Get charged or simply arrested for a felony, get your DNA added to the dbase. Done deal. Doesn't matter if you're guilty or not. An arrest is all it takes.

      W
    • by Shaper_pmp (825142) on Friday May 27, 2005 @04:48AM (#12652972)
      How in the living fuck did the parent get modded Funny? Insightful? Interesting? Depressing and angry-making beyond belief? All yes. Fucking funny?

      Some points to consider:

      1) It's true, sheeple - IIRC, the majority of (all?) examples given are actually real.

      2) Given it's true, it's a fucking disgrace. It's cause for armed rebellion in the streets, not a few confortable chuckles.

      I always avoid content-free posts from people carping about the moderation system, but Jesus Fucking Christ on a crutch. /rant
  • by linuxci (3530) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:39AM (#12652675)
    They're trialling this scheme at London Heathrow airport for a while now. They still have the standard metal detectors, but they pick people at 'random' for the body scanner.

    I usually avoid Heathrow like the plauge because of the long queues and usually use London City Airport [flylcy.com] as you can check in there 20 mins before take off. However, one day I had to fly from terminal 4 at Heathrow and while waiting in a 40 minute queue to get through security I noticed that they always seemed to pick the slim and reasonably attractive types for the body scan. So either that was coincidence or there was a few pervs there.
  • by mrjb (547783) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:40AM (#12652682)
    ...for airport security, honestly!", Thus spoke the geek inventor of the device he affectionally calls "the incredible peepshow machine". "It took quite a bit of tweaking to get the part of the nipples and genitals outlines right though"
  • by Dr.Opveter (806649) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:40AM (#12652685)
    security guy: Please step aside sir!
    guy: Who me?
    security guy: Yes you with the cock ring
  • No free pr0n (Score:3, Informative)

    by Underholdning (758194) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:43AM (#12652698) Homepage Journal
    . "I have a beautiful 29-year-old daughter and a beautiful wife, and I don't want some screeners to be looking at them through their clothes, plain and simple," he said

    The operators of the scanners are only allowed to scan people of the same sex as themself.
    • Re:No free pr0n (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hugzz (712021) on Friday May 27, 2005 @04:53AM (#12652993)
      If i was living in a house of only guys, I wouldn't walk around naked all day.

      Just because it's another guy who's looking at me, doesn't mean it's OKAY. Some people may be very uncomfortable with their body. Why should they have to get naked every time they go on a flight?

  • by IsThisWorking (883966) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:48AM (#12652721)
    Pedophiles everywhere must be excited about this.

    Work for the government, get paid, and get to watch naked kids all day long...

    There is relly no need to encrypt your files [slashdot.org], after all.

    I'm just waiting to see how long it will be before someone start posting those pictures.
  • Great Demo! (Score:3, Informative)

    by nate nice (672391) on Friday May 27, 2005 @03:59AM (#12652771) Journal
    This is great [freedomisslavery.info] demo use of this device because gun shootings on planes are like daily occurances. Thankfully we will finally be able to see the people that bring guns on planes.

  • I don't care (Score:4, Insightful)

    by melted (227442) on Friday May 27, 2005 @04:03AM (#12652785) Homepage
    If they want to see my hairy ass for five secons, that's fine with me. Just don't ask me to take off my fucking jacket and shoes and go through the metal detector three times.

    I don't even perceive this as invasion of privacy. If airlines (or TSA) were smart, they'd run both "old fashioned" and "X-ray" things in parallel. X-ray line would move much faster, so people would be going there even though this means showing someone their hairy asses.
  • WWJAD (Score:4, Funny)

    by VanillaCoke420 (662576) <vanillacoke420NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Friday May 27, 2005 @04:05AM (#12652791)
    What Would John Ashcroft Do? Oh, the dilemma!
  • by billylo (158826) on Friday May 27, 2005 @04:10AM (#12652822)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27, 2005 @04:19AM (#12652867)
    1) The images released to the news are intentionally blurry. The real images are much sharper. You can also see e.g. the shinbone as the backscatter radiation penetrates not only clothing, but skin.

    2) The amount of radiation received is portrayed as being low. What they neglect to mention is the dosage per UNIT TIME. Sure, you get more on an International flight, but it is amortized over a number of hours, not minutes or seconds. For example, a bone marrow recipient has the old defective marrow killed off by radiation over a couple of days; the same dosage would be fatal if given over a short time period. You also have to add in the cumulative effect of being scanned now in ADDITION to any other radiation you already would receive. If you fly frequently, this may be alarming.

    3) This still does nothing for explosives smuggled internally, or for the 95% of unscreened checked luggage. It also does nothing to protect people standing in lines for tickets or at the terminal.

    For instance, imagine the TSA actually catches a suicide bomber strapped with explosives. Well, he or she can take out hundreds of people in those parallel security lines, from a combination of different flights...

    Thus, all the screening they have added is NOT for protecting people, but for protecting PLANES. Planes are expensive.

    Finally, remember in Israel they made it very hard to hijack a plane. What happened? They got suicide bombers every OTHER place instead. Night clubs, restaurants, cafes, on buses, in traffic, everywhere. If you don't want suicide bombers, you have to prevent people from WANTING to do it in the first place. Trying to catch them in the act is going after the symptom, not the root problem.

    Airplanes are more secure now for one reason only. The passengers now know to fight back.

    We aren't going to see another hijacking for that reason alone. However, there are numerous ways to sneak items onboard which could take out the plane. And it is trivial to leave an unattended package in a crowded line, and an incident at a major airport will shut it down and snarl traffic across the country just as well as if it were on a plane.

    It is impossible to stop 100% of determined attacks. The best defense is to avoid having enemies that hate you to that extent in the first place.
  • Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BenjyD (316700) on Friday May 27, 2005 @04:40AM (#12652937)
    Airline security is so strange. No metal cutlery, no pen knives, nothing vaguely weapon-like in hyour hand luggage, advanced scanner technology everywhere on boarding.

    But can I take these four bottles of duty-free vodka which can be turned into extremely sharp weapons in about five seconds in my hand luggage? Of course you can sir.
  • by dbond (591005) on Friday May 27, 2005 @04:55AM (#12653007) Homepage
    ...I'm fine with that. Better still, how about enforced nakedness on the plane? ... Or I store the plastic explosive up my arse/ass? Technology's not the answer. The USA not behaving in a way which leads people to hate it so much that they're willing to die for the cause IS.
  • Safety? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Builder (103701) on Friday May 27, 2005 @05:47AM (#12653187)
    To the best of my knowledge, there are no independant studies verifying the safety of these devices for regular scanning.

    As far as I know, pregnent women may opt to NOT go through the trial devices at heathrow. This to me implies that there is a level of risk involved that I am not prepared to accept.

    There are also no clear guidelines on vetting the staff that will use these. Sure, you can only scan people of the same sex, but that doesn't exclude homosexual screeners. The whole point of same-sex screeners is to remove any sexual element from the scan, but it doesn't do that at all.

    And let's not forget the 'Think of the children' angle of course ;)

    I guess this is just one more reason for me to keep my foreign investment out of the USA and take it somewhwere else. This does completely fuck up my 30th birthday plans of course, but I'll find somewhere else to go.
  • by D4C5CE (578304) on Friday May 27, 2005 @06:13AM (#12653269)
    The article portrays these scanners as if they were new devices just probably about to be introduced soon.

    Rather than being afraid of "scary things yet to come", if that has an overtone of "don't panic"..., have a look at this excerpt from a scholarly article (and that's by a Professor of Law) on what was known the technology could do more than half a decade ago already: Froomkin, The Death of Privacy, p. 1499-1501 (p. 39-41 of the PDF) [miami.edu].

    Resolution 1 millimeter even back then, with drastic explanations of what that means.

    Now... panic!

  • Hot Celebs Naked! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Titusdot Groan (468949) on Friday May 27, 2005 @07:25AM (#12653502) Journal
    Now with full body naked airport scans of JLo, Jennifer Aniston, Britney Spears, ...
  • by DeanFox (729620) * <spam.mynameNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 27, 2005 @07:28AM (#12653516)

    I am going to patent a line of obfuscation undergarments and make a fortune. Using metal microfilament thread woven into a mesh. You'll be able to choose between a smilie face, a finger flipping the TSA the bird and for the more adventurous, the John Holmes line (only available as boxers).
  • by Greyfox (87712) on Friday May 27, 2005 @07:30AM (#12653533) Homepage Journal
    In the past lets say, oh, 20 years, how many people have snuck a weapon onto a plane on their person? The 9/11 terrorists carried their boxcutters on in their luggage and at the time they'd have been allowed those items even if they'd been searched (And I seem to recall that at least one of them actually was.)

    Besides which, the golden age of hijacking planes is now over. No group of passengers or crew is going to allow it anymore. Pull any shit on a plane and you'll get your ass tackled by every person on the plane. If they somehow still succeed, the government will have no problem blowing a civilian aircraft out of the sky now that they know what their alternatives are. I got even money on any single fighter pilot being able to pull the trigger on civilians, which is one of the reasons they scramble two.

    The more I see stuff like this, the more I'm inclined to believe that no one in the government has any idea how to actually keep its citizens safe. I'm think that this, like many other "security measures" since 9/11, is a placebo designed soley to comfort an ignorant population by making them think that someone is actually doing something useful. Certainly a naked X-ray is a much more comforting thought than is the idea that you could be on the receiving end of an air-to-air missile if someone does actually succeed in hijacking your plane...

"It's curtains for you, Mighty Mouse! This gun is so futuristic that even *I* don't know how it works!" -- from Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

Working...