Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy

Airport Scanners Can Store and Transmit Images 350

Posted by kdawson
from the naked-truth dept.
CNN is reporting on findings from a Freedom of Information request initiated by the Electronic Privacy Information Center that has revealed that, contrary to public statements by the Transportation Security Agency, full-body scanners can store and transmit images. "In the [FOIA] documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in 'test mode.' ... 'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airport Scanners Can Store and Transmit Images

Comments Filter:
  • No duh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:18PM (#30731296)

    The picture they show in every article about the things must have come from somewhere.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GumphMaster (772693)
      The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action. Further, they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief (accident or deliberate). Can you imagine the "scandal" if a plane goes down, it's suspicious, and the investigating body does not have this imagery?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chatsubo (807023)

      At the end of the day, it's pretty easy to just whip out a camera-phone (these days this translates to "every cellphone"), and take a picture of the screen.

  • amusing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kharchenko (303729) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:19PM (#30731312)

    The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

    • Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:25PM (#30731360)
      I'd be more concerned about the explosives getting through the scanners if I was actually afraid of getting blown up in a plane (or having an exploding plane fall on my head). Even if we'd had a few more successful attempts at pulling that off, I still wouldn't be afraid. You are STILL far more likely to get in an accident in your car on the way to the airport than having a terrorist strike your plane. On the other hand, EVERYONE has to deal with all these layers of asinine security.
      • Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by linhares (1241614) on Monday January 11, 2010 @09:18PM (#30731876)
        who needs to bring a bomb through these machines anyway?

        "We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening.

        Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8438355.stm [bbc.co.uk]

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Facegarden (967477)

          who needs to bring a bomb through these machines anyway?

          "We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening.

          Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8438355.stm [bbc.co.uk]

          to be fair, you're pulling that quote slightly out of context. The guy was trying to suggest that body scanners are not the best idea, and profiling people is better, so he was trying to discredit the scanners. He wasn't citing any research and that's not what the article is about. You're citing an unverified quote in the article about something else.

          More complete quote:

          Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, said scanners were not the only solution and profiling passengers was, in fact, the best way to prevent terrorist acts.
          "We've got to face the fact that you can build a bomb in the duty free shop, after you've gone through screening. Bearing that in mind, we need to look at what people's intent is, not what they are carrying on their person."

          Still, he's the editor of some magazine, so he may know what he's talking about, but the BBC article doesn't go into it and its possible th

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LockeOnLogic (723968)
      I'm concerned about both. I'm not ashamed of my body but that doesn't mean I want a complete stranger looking at a picture of me naked, no matter how fuzzy.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

      It isn't that fuzzy. I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia. These scanners won't last long. I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.

      As far as chemical scanners are concerned, I don't really care. What scares me is driving on the road because I know that the odds are I'm going to get cr

      • by sacdelta (135513)

        It's more likely that they will recreate the elite program to allow celebrities and politicians to bypass the scanners.

        I'm much more concerned that they do checks to make sure the people operating the machines aren't pedophiles.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by russ1337 (938915)

        It isn't that fuzzy. I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia. These scanners won't last long. I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.

        That is why i'm going to make sure I 'chub up' before going through one...

      • Re:amusing (Score:4, Interesting)

        by GameboyRMH (1153867) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {hmryobemag}> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @10:18AM (#30736554) Journal
        It's worth noting that whenever they show a scan on TV, they have the subjects put metal plates over their "naughty bits" for the scan. That says something.
    • Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by santax (1541065) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:34PM (#30731450)
      It's not the fact that someone sees me naked, it's about the fact that I want my damn privacy. I have yet to see the first terrorist ask me to strip naked. Yet apparently when the first goverment-official tells me he wants to have a look at my dick that I have to comply! One thing is sure. I have lost 0% safety and privacy to terrorist. But I lost 100% safety and privacy to goverments the last 20 years. And I bet this goes for 99.9% of the people in the western world. It has to stop you know...
      • Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ziekheid (1427027) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:52PM (#30731628)

        Exactly! I'm so sick and tired of people saying "if you have nothing to hide why whine?" or "you must have a small penis if you're so concerned with body scanners".
        It's just none of their damn business and we've given the terrorists EXACTLY what they wanted, mass paranoia and giving up our freedoms for "the war on terrorism".

        Add to this the fact that in a moment of hysteria the airport that let the Nigerian through (Schiphol) ordered 60 of the WRONG bodyscanners which would not be able to detect the kind of "bomb" the Nigerian was carying http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/366577/Verkeerde-bodyscanners-besteld.html [depers.nl] (source in Dutch, since Schiphol is in the Netherlands).
        They are ordering the same bodyscanners in the US but possibly with the addition of x-ray scanners that are able to find anal insertions, I'm guessing these will only be used in case of doubt but are likely to be bad for your health (I have no idea to what extend).

        Police in the Netherlands is already talking, and set aside money for research, about a mobile bodyscanner.
        I'm wondering what the next step will be, body scanners before I enter the bus or train?
        Body scanners when I enter the university?

        • Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Trillian_1138 (221423) <slashdot AT fridaythang DOT com> on Monday January 11, 2010 @11:17PM (#30732802)

          Exactly! I'm so sick and tired of people saying "if you have nothing to hide why whine?" or "you must have a small penis if you're so concerned with body scanners".

          Without being sarcastic, some of us are concerned about having their small penis put up for display. This will inevitably be TMI, but I know I'm not the only trans woman who reads Slashdot, and presenting and being perceived as a woman but smuggling a dick through security runs the risk of harassment (if you're lucky) and arrest/sexual assault/murder (if you're not).

          I'm all for safe air travel, but I can see a million ways to abuse this technology, and use it to harass and humiliate people who aren't terrorists for every one way it can be used to "fight terrorism."

      • by xmundt (415364)

        Greetings and Salutations...
        this concept of privacy is addressed in another posting to /....and I will read it later. In any case, I am right with you, in that I value my privacy and do not like having ANYONE staring over my shoulder all the time. I am older than dirt, so I recall that the only class of people that were under 24/7 observation were high-security prisoners, and, frankly, I have no desire to join (or be dragged into) that class.

    • Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:34PM (#30731460)

      The "fuzzy resemblance" of a body has little to do with anything. People who would just as soon walk naked on the beach have serious concerns about what amounts to no less than a strip search with not even so much as reasonable suspicion.

      This is the most invasive government search, justified by less than the smallest legally acceptable standard of criminal suspicion. The reason strip searches are so narrowly confined has less to do with dignity or moral discomfort at being handled by a police officer than with the incredible invasiveness of the procedure. There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."

      The government simply should not be empowered to demand this of its citizens with no basis whatsoever. Without these protections, what is the point of having gradations in police voluntary contact vs. detention vs. arrest? Why limit searches based only on reasonable suspicion to immediate surroundings and officer safety searches?

      If some sub-police TSA agent can give you a digital strip search merely for wanting to fly from Chicago to New York, then there's nothing stopping them from rifling through your shopping bags in your locked trunk when you roll through a stop sign; there's nothing to stop them from a "harmless" invasion into your hard drive because there's an infinitesimal possibility there might be some terrorist information in there.

      The line has been crossed with warrantless wiretapping, suspicionless searches, and generally unnecessary, unproductive, and invasive government behavior. If naked pictures of air travelers is the straw that breaks the camel's back, so be it. At least they've finally noticed that something's rotten in the state of wherever-you-are.

      • Re:amusing (Score:5, Funny)

        by Hatta (162192) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:47PM (#30731566) Journal

        This is the most invasive government search

        Well, the 2nd most. The most invasive search requires rubber gloves.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by idontgno (624372)

          Several folks are worried it might come to that. [nationalterroralert.com]

          And even after that, what happens when the bomb is surgically implanted? Penetrating x-rays and lots of explaining about medical implants? "Yes, officer, I really do have two artificial hips and a pacemaker. That's not a couple of sticks of dynamite and a trigger."

          • Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Jeremi (14640) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:55AM (#30733468) Homepage

            And even after that, what happens when the bomb is surgically implanted?

            There's probably no need to resort to surgery even, someone could just swallow a number of small timed explosives. Hell, drug smugglers have been swallowing condoms full of cocaine for years, and it (usually) works for them...

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by ignavus (213578)

          This is the most invasive government search

          Well, the 2nd most. The most invasive search requires rubber gloves.

          If only they would check prostates while they were at it, it would at least be medically worthwhile.

      • by $beirdo (318326)

        Thank you for posting this, you are 100% right on the money.

      • Re:amusing (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday January 11, 2010 @09:10PM (#30731798) Homepage

        There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."

        I agree with you generally, but I think there is still another side to this whole thing, which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies. Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while. There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason. Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.

        So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere. I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports. If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no. If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree. When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine). Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport. If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me. I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.

        So looking at it that way, I can't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far. I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one, then it probably is too far. However, I think I wouldn't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off. Maybe that's just a mental defect on my part.

        • "I agree with you generally, but I think there is still another side to this whole thing, which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies."

          So unless you would argue that consistency is not a good thing, clearly you think we should be doing this at every public place where a terrorist could conceivably attack. Your fine with putting these up at elementary schools and subjecting your children to this kind of security theatre, for example, correct?

    • Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:38PM (#30731482)

      The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

      A large part of our objection is due to that second part exactly: it's TSA, operator error and general incompetence will likely preclude it actually being effective. It would be objectionable enough even if it would actually increase our safety, but it's not going to do that.

      What it's going to be used for primarily is to catch more drug smugglers. I don't give a flying fuck about that goal, I definitely am not willing to sacrifice more privacy, the waste of all that taxpayer money, or the hassle of even longer lines. No.

      In fact I think it's more likely that this will be counterproductive by making longer lines. Fairly often, the lines to go through the scanners have more people than are actually on a plane. That bombers aren't targeting those lines is a real testament to how stupid TSA and terrorists are, it's only a matter of time before they realize this. I'd prefer security checkpoints be faster so fewer people are in the real danger zone when they do.

      • Do drug smugglers use airline smuggling anymore? I presumed the majority was moved in larger quantities across the border these days.
    • I am very worried that they might be able to preserve a fuzzy resemblance of my body after I go through an airport scanner. I devote a lot of effort to man-scrapping, and I would appreciate it if they would at least use good enough quality equipment to show off my efforts...
    • Re:amusing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:53PM (#30731642)

      You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

      Considering we've seen WAY more cases of TSA malfeasance than we have seen terrorist attacks, is it really so surprising?

      Just you watch - we'll see a new kind of pr0n from the pervs who brought us "up-skirt" - scanner pr0n.

      Furthermore, these machines are obsolete before they are even deployed - they only see through clothing, not through the body and we've already had one case of an "ass bomber" in Abdullah Hassan Taleh al-Asiri this past september in Saudi Arabia. And while he mostly succeeding in killing only himself with little harm to others, that's because he detonated it in his ass. Even the underwear bomber spent 20 minutes in the lavatory getting ready - nothing to stop someone from taking the bomb out of their ass before detonating it on a plane. Get three or four of these guys on a plane and that's lot of bomb material sailing right past the latest billion dollars boondoggle.

      Personally, I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb, detonators in the balls of course. The TSA will just let him pass as they will be shocked and awed by the size of his tool, not realizing who he's really going to use that tool to fuck over.

    • Re:amusing (Score:4, Funny)

      by bugs2squash (1132591) on Monday January 11, 2010 @09:17PM (#30731854)
      As I get older my body is naturally getting fuzzier. If the scanner adds more fuzz the TSA will simply view me as a giant hairball.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's not the point, the point is that they deliberately lied to the public about the machine not being able to store images, they got caught and now they are (doubtless) lying again when they say there is "no way" to put the machine into test mode outside of TSA "test centers".

    • You people see a problem, I see a marketing opportunity: Lead-Lined Underwear! [drct.com]
  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mononoke (88668) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:19PM (#30731314) Homepage Journal
    It doesn't matter, and nothing we think on this subject matters anyway.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dgatwood (11270)

      Sadly, that seems to be pretty much true. If the fact that they won't actually prevent anything (because they can't scan inside body cavities), can cause DNA damage (by unzipping DNA strands), and are a major privacy violation isn't enough to prevent this multi-billion-dollar waste of taxpayer dollars from happening, nothing we can possibly say or do will prevent it, either. The only way this will stop is if we can convince enough people to stop flying. If these things went in and suddenly people said "s

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Unoti (731964)

        The only way this will stop is if we can convince enough people to stop flying

        You're right, of course. It'd be really great if we lived in some sort of democratic society where the people have a say in what the govenrment does, and the officials are responsible to the will of the people.

    • Sure it does (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770)

      If it pisses you off enough to stop flying, then do so. Also, if you do stop flying, make sure to let the airlines know. You can send a letter to all the ones you use, but in particular any you have a frequent flier program with. Send them something like:

      "I regret to inform you that as of this date, I will no longer by flying on your airline. The reason for this has nothing to do with your company or the service I receive, but rather with the onerous, arbitrary, ineffective, and demeaning security theater i

  • If it can be done, it will be done.

  • Wow, what a surprise! Just like electronic voting machines, I'm absolutely certain they are invulnerable to hacking.

  • by russotto (537200) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:30PM (#30731402) Journal

    Further analysis of the documents finds some improperly-redacted material indicating that the test mode can in fact be entered with a sequence on the control panel, to wit "UP UP DOWN DOWN LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT B A START".

  • by ebonum (830686) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:31PM (#30731422)

    "cannot be hacked"
    This should be a massive red flag. The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.

    "employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal"

    Hmmm. So when pushed, they admit that security is ensured by the fact that the government employees are going to behave. Just like those Blackwater guys?

    I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things. Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.

    • by mosb1000 (710161)
      He's saying they can't be hacked because they aren't on a network (like the Battlestar Galactica). But the images are viewed at a remote location, and the data has to be transmitted somehow. So of course they can be hacked. Even if it weren't so, someone could simply take a picture of the viewing screen with a digital camera.
    • by geekmux (1040042)

      "cannot be hacked" This should be a massive red flag...I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things. Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.

      Ah, sorry, but you couldn't pay me enough to sit in front of one of these things for even five minutes. After seeing the 457th lard-ass waddle their way through the scanner, I'd likely be puking too hard to care about hacking. I'm betting those images would make a Gynecologists office in a retirement community look like Playboy by comparison.

    • by timmarhy (659436)
      the wireless ability is probably an expansion card that's removed after testing/servicing. so unhackable in that instance is correct.

      All the fuss is really about women who don't want slack jawed TSA agents gawking at their naked image. i can well imagine them creating walls of fame as actors etc go through these machines and they take a snap shot of the screen with their phones.

      one solution would be to make all the operators female, even that isn't a perfect solution. really i question the cost effectiven

    • "cannot be hacked"
      This should be a massive red flag. The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.

      It does to us, but this is the TSA. They have a blank check. The money isn't theirs. They want to make it look like they're doing a job, one that they've never been capable of doing. Saying "This can't be hacked" makes them think "Oh good, something else not to worry about, buy it now!"

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:33PM (#30731438)

    'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.

    Leaving aside the idea of whether we really should care or not...

    By not answering, I think this official made the answer pretty obvious. Basically it's analogous to the RFID passport issue. When they say "it can only be done under these specific circumstances", they're simply leaving off the lead-in phrase "Our policy is clear - ". The erstwhile "restriction" is political, not technical.

    I imagine it won't be too long before some enterprising TSA employee - or a hacker - puts up a website with surreptitious photographs of cute women alongside their full-body scan images.

  • But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.

    The official's reluctance to provide additional information on what is required to put it into test mode pretty much gives you your answer; you just need more information on how it works in order to put it in test mode.

  • by $beirdo (318326) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:39PM (#30731496) Homepage

    Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.

    We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right not to be examined nude en masse by the government when we travel.

    Dignity is an essential human right. How dare we sacrifice it to terror?

    Freedom? Yeah, right!

    • Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.

      You know, I was kind of annoyed by the concept until you put it just as you did. I imagined it. I didn't care.

      I've realized that I don't care about some "TSA creep" snickering about my body, or anything else of mine, or anyone else's body for that matter. By definition of their being a "creep" their opinion is irrelevant to me. Can they match person X with their image? Doubtful, but probably possible. But even then, there is nothing stopping anyone from [i]claiming[/i] a vague or doctored image corres

      • "I've realized that I don't care about some "TSA creep" snickering about my body, or anything else of mine, or anyone else's body for that matter."

        Why didn't the TSA official explain it to me that way in the first place?

        Reporter: Mr. TSA official, shouldn't we be concerned about privacy issues?

        TSA Official: Well, we thought so at first, but then we checked with some guy on Slashdot whose SlashID describes his dogs breath after he gets a blowjob and realized that it's not something anybody should care

    • by PPH (736903)

      Snickering?

      When my wife goes through there, they'll be dropping to their kness, chanting, "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!"

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        So you're saying that she looks like Alice Cooper?

    • by BitHive (578094)

      If dignity were an essential human right, the free market would have already put a price on it. As this has not happened, we must conclude "dignity" is a liberal myth.

    • by BronsCon (927697)

      We've become french. This is our white flag.

    • When some idiot blows his dick off (quite literally), we have proven that we cannot have nice things like air travel, and proven that we need more surveillance and shit.
    • by Xyrus (755017) on Monday January 11, 2010 @11:01PM (#30732684) Journal

      Senator: "We must stop at nothing to prevent terrorist attacks!"
      TSA1: "I can see your penis."
      Senator: "Err....well...uhhhh..."
      TSA2: "Your wife has nice tits, too."
      Senator: "Now wait a just a minute..."
      TSA3: "Mmm...barely legal T&A. Are you sure that daughter is yours?"
      Senator: "May God smite you! I am outraged!"
      TSA1: "Sir, you are behaving in an odd manner. I'm afraid we'll need to do a full cavity search."
      TSA2: "The wife's mine."
      TSA3: "Dibs on the daughter!"
      Senator: "My God, what have I done?"
      God: "Fucking idiot."

      ~X~

  • by lymond01 (314120) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:40PM (#30731508)

    Need a shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body so when you step into the scanner, they only see a head and shoes.

    Add: A fluctuating Eye of Sauron where your chest would be that the x-rays can see.

  • Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:41PM (#30731514)
    They probably record every single image generated by those things, and hold it at least until the passenger's flight is over. I don't see why they would do it any other way. It flies in the face of reason. I know they say otherwise, but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public. It's for the greater good, right?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by The TSA (1718764)

      They probably record every single image generated by those things, and hold it at least until the passenger's flight is over. I don't see why they would do it any other way. It flies in the face of reason. I know they say otherwise, but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public. It's for the greater good, right?

      The TSA does not lie to the general public, never has, never will. You, on the other hand, are an inch shorter than stated on your job application form and may continue to shrink, should you fail to retract your statement.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    For actual security purposes it would make sense to store images and network the machines. That way after the fact if there is a security lapse they can review someone's scan to see what was missed.
  • Cool! (Score:4, Funny)

    by zmollusc (763634) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:44PM (#30731534)

    They can add value by auto-updating everyone's FaceBook page with the latest scan and the new status 'clean'/'hilarious'/'needs liposuction'/'tumescent'/'en route to Gitmo' etc.

  • Anyone wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lattyware (934246) <gareth@lattyware.co.uk> on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:45PM (#30731554) Homepage Journal
    Just get a really, really ugly person to do it. They are not going to be looking.
  • by chiph (523845) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:47PM (#30731564)

    Got a real hot babe going thru the scanner here.
    - TSA Perv

  • Do you see what some people wear through airports? Really stereotyping their destinations in crazy Hawaiian shirts. At least the guy watching the body scan images sees them as human.
  • ... automatically when the equipment detects the presence of a particularly well-endowed female.

  • Now we evidently need tin-foil underwear!!

  • by doomy (7461) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:59PM (#30731696) Homepage Journal

    How does this stop terrorists who board plans elsewhere and come here (with the thought of blowing up the plane?). These scanners need to be where a terrorist is most likely to board a plane. Thus a push for having them in international airports all over the world would be a much better plan than having them all over the US including tiny domestic airports.

  • by geekmux (1040042) on Monday January 11, 2010 @09:05PM (#30731758)

    C'mon now, all this talk about celebrities and hacking those "high-profile" images. Please. Most celebrities don't bother with this now.

    Let's see, I'm a celebrity making millions. Do I A) Pay $1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my "naked" image, or B) Realize I have enough "ah, fuck it" money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I don't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.

  • by fast turtle (1118037) on Monday January 11, 2010 @09:12PM (#30731808) Journal

    just fly naked. If they don't like it, you can claim it's a security related measure.

  • No crap! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by /dev/trash (182850) on Monday January 11, 2010 @09:19PM (#30731882) Homepage Journal

    Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial. And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented. Well. Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.

    You don't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.

  • I was initially ambivalent about scanners and pretty much said, "hey, it's not like they're storing the images." Test Mode my ass. If they have the ability, they are using the ability. Next, we'll hear about machines "accidentally" left in test mode during real-world usage. There is absolutely no reason to store these images.

Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings

Working...