Homeland Security: New Body Scanners Have Issues 181
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the many-tax-dollars-were-spent-to-reach-this-conclusion dept.
from the many-tax-dollars-were-spent-to-reach-this-conclusion dept.
Fluffeh writes "Although the DHS has spent around $90 million upgrading magnetometers to the new body scanners, federal investigators 'identified vulnerabilities in the screening process' at domestic airports using the new machines, according to a classified internal Department of Homeland Security report. Exactly how bad the body scanners are is not being divulged publicly, but the Inspector General's report (PDF) made eight separate recommendations on how to improve screening. To quiet privacy concerns, the authorities are also spending $7 million to 'remove the human factor from the image review process' and replace the passenger's image with an avatar."
Another DHS Fail (Score:4, Insightful)
This is getting to the point of ridiculousness due to the another article bringing up issues with the body scanners. The public really needs to send letters and sign petitions in mass to get rid of this expensive cancer causing paper weights.
Re:Another DHS Fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Cancer causing is 100% correct. A friend of mine is a radiation oncologist. He has worked with every type of radiation emittable by a machine for many, many years. He knows the effects of all types of radiation on human flesh, it's his job. He uses various types of radiation to cure cancer and a host of other maladies. The man is an expert.
He also refuses to step into one of the scanners, and he has advised me and everyone he knows to avoid stepping into them.
'nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A friend of mine works in radiology research. He holds the same opinion.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Okay, if you prefer:
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/259/1/6.extract [rsna.org]
http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/145/1/75 [oxfordjournals.org]
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/171/12/1129 [ama-assn.org]
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientists-cast-doubt-on-tsa-tests-of-full-body-scanners [propublica.org]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364908000708 [sciencedirect.com]
Find me similar articles from professionals in the relevant fields and not associated with the TSA that say the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
This is getting to the point of ridiculousness due to the another article bringing up issues with the body scanners. The public really needs to send letters and sign petitions in mass to get rid of this expensive cancer causing paper weights.
I'd go so far as to say shitcan the entirety of the TSA. Apart from violating the 4th amendment, they are useless security theatre with no redeeming qualities.
m
Human Factor (Score:4, Insightful)
When they said they were removing the "human factor" I assumed that meant they were removing the TSA agents looking at the images and replacing it with some kind of image analysis software... not slapping the equivalent of a black bar over the naughty bits.
Also, I'm surprised they only estimate it to cost $7 mil... seems like it's not enough for sufficient profits even with the inevitable budget overruns.
Re: (Score:3)
isn't the whole point of the scanner lost though if you overlay something on top of the pics?
the point of the scanner would be to see the naked body - but if you don't want that, why bother with the new scanner in the first place?
and imho certifying for the scanners would be a higher concern, no?
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered why they can't distort the images like a hall of mirrors or something. That would be easy to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly Automatic Target Detection is software that analyzes the raw images themselves looking for anomalies. In Germany they found the system to result in something like a 50% false positive rate. So it's far from perfect. But the idea is to shut down the peep/perv/wank booths and replace the horny human pedophiles wanking to real images of little girl vaginas with a relatively indifferent computer program which won't be quite as titillated by thousands of naked bodies everyday. Of course the TSA is not
Privacy concerns (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never quite understood this privacy thing. What is the problem of someone watching a shadow image of your genitalia? Even if some agent chuckle a bit at your not-so-male panties or broccoli-shaped penis, what is the matter? Probably this sort of thing gets boring after some days having to look at this machine...
Re:Privacy concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
My point was that the principle of searching travelers without probable cause is far more offensive than being viewed naked.
That said, there is no reason to believe it's just one pervert viewing your naked picture (or the naked picture of your kids). The scanners capture digital images which can be easily stored or transmitted in several ways, the most obvious of which is pointing a smart phone's camera at the monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
The scanners capture digital images which can be easily stored or transmitted in several ways,
But just to be clear, that's not theft.
Re: (Score:3)
I think everybody agrees that some kind of probing is needed. I prefer to show at once that I am not carrying nothing dangerous to other passengers rather then having to take out my shoes or the belt that hold my trousers (and then incurring the risk of having to show my actual body to the authorities).
Besides, I still don't see reason in your argument. You don't say, for instance, what actual harm such imaginary pervert can do to you or your kids. I think what makes people feel uncomfortable is the idea that there could be someone enjoying the images on the other side of the machine. But the fact is that: (a) this is quite improbable, given the security measures on these agents; and (b) it is not much different from anywhere else (how difficult is to smuggle a microcamera inside the changing room of a children clothing shop?).
No, not everybody agrees some kind of probing is needed. People really do have certain inalienable rights. Likewise, just because some people might have a pot farm in their basement or a meth lab doesn't mean the "authorities" should be able to enter anybody's house without cause.
It is a serious thing to surrender one's rights and it should only happen for serious reasons. Remember that not one thing the TSA does would have prevented 9/11. TSA is a knee-jerk reaction that costs a lot of money but in the
Re: (Score:2)
You are incorrect, I don't see why any probing is needed. Terrorism, not just real, but even the lone incompetent idiots (who usually fail anyway) are so far and few between that I would happily board a plane, anonymously and with no screening at all, pay cash for my seat, and fly in safety and comfort, knowing everyone else on the plane could have and may have done exactly the same.
and I will STILL be many times safer than I was driving my car to the airport.
I feel more endangered BY the probing than anyth
Re: (Score:2)
I think what makes people feel uncomfortable is that they prefer to wear clothes in public rather than have strangers see them naked.
Even members of the nudist subculture could justifiably object to being ordered to disrobe by a government official.
Re:Privacy concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably this sort of thing gets boring after some days having to look at this machine...
Why don't you ask the hot girls who have to go back and forth through the scanners [cbslocal.com] while they call a few more people over to have a look, "just to be sure".
Or the pedophiles [google.com] who've been arrested while in the employ of the TSA.
Just because you don't mind, or you think you'd get bored, doesn't mean everybody else feels the same.
Re:Privacy concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Cases of abuse have to be dealt with disciplinary actions, as with any other area of society. In any case, I doubt they are widespread. Also, pedophiles exist everywhere. For instance, there are numerous cases of pedophile teachers; but I doubt you feel uncomfortable to send your kids to the school.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. That is what we have all been saying. The TSA scanning people is a blatant case of abuse of power, and it needs to be dealt with by doing away with such a ridiculous violation of our 4th amendment rights. You see, you had the right idea, but the wrong scope.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, there are numerous cases of pedophile teachers; but I doubt you feel uncomfortable to send your kids to the school.
I'll keep saying it -- there is a perceived benefit to sending kids to school (they may learn something). That offsets the various risks that are involved in the process. In the absence of benefits (as TSA does not benefit travelers, hasn't caught a single terrorists or verify-ably stopped an attack), the process is a net loss
Yes, the risk of pedophiles or cancer (*) or whatever is presumably reasonably low, but what do you have to gain?
* I understand that at least some earlier machines that were bought
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the CBS article, I'm not terribly convinced. Yes, they have looked at complaints but they never established a baseline 'frisk' rate. It would be trivial for an 'journalistic' organization such as CBS to station a half dozen monitors at some checkpoints for a day and ascertain the male:female and age distribution of people screened and rescreened with the machines.
That would be useful and an interesting journalistic exercise.
The referred news 'story' is just noise.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, in what other context in your life would you essentially be strip searched? The answer is probably nowhere.
So, why do you feel we should subject ourselves to it at the airport? Why should w
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's my right to decide who sees my broccoli-shaped penis and not-so-male panties, plain and simple just as it's my right to decide who touches those same things. Unless there is a clear and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing the government's supposed to butt out. Keep that camel's nose out of my pants, please.
Re: (Score:2)
I never quite understood this privacy thing.
Well you are certainly giving that impressiion.
What is the problem of someone watching a shadow image of your genitalia?
Please post one of these 'shadow' images you refer to so that we can see for ourselves how shadowy they are. In fact they resemble black and white photographs far more than they do 'shadows'. While the images are not as wank-worthy as those from the x-ray scanners you can still see quite a lot.
Even if some agent chuckle a bit at your not-so-male panties or broccoli-shaped penis, what is the matter?
The problem is that not everyone wants to display their naked body in order to exercise their basic human right to travel freely. Yes, I know you are going to launch into
Re: (Score:2)
To me, these scanners are the digital age equivalent of strutting someone around naked with a black bag over their head. That the person isn't easily identifiable doesn't change the fact that it's degrading, humiliating, and strips us not just of our clothes, but also of our dignity.
Re: (Score:2)
Only among the incredibly stupid. Like I keep telling people every time the government spouts such idiocy, it's software. They're still taking a picture of you naked; they're just hiding some of the details from the screener. Thus:
Been saying since day one (Score:3)
If this is not like the technology "displayed" in Total Recall it will never be acceptable.
How did these officials ever think the technology as deployed was even remotely acceptable? Yet people never seem to get the hint that the bigger the government the less it really has to care.
Re: (Score:3)
How did these officials ever think the technology as deployed was even remotely acceptable?
People can convince themselves of all sorts of things when they stand to make a nice profit.
Avatar (Score:4, Funny)
Do we at least get to customize our avatar as one can on many websites?
Re:Avatar (Score:4, Insightful)
No, only one avatar is available.
It is decidedly suitable [kym-cdn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the TSA is also working on a micropayment system, where you can purchase one of hundreds of different avatar designs to display on their scanners, for a very reasonable fee.
Re: (Score:2)
And for a bit more they can sell you some of the raw nude images of the most attractive young girls they recently scanned. For even more money you can opt to have a very thorough genital groping from a beautiful female screener. A former model hired just for that purpose. With these sorts of measures these expensive machines might actually pay for themselves eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
But, fortunately, when he dies, he reincarnates. [wikia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
OMG Furries!
NOOOOO!
I was gonna write something... (Score:5, Insightful)
... along the lines of "if they did this avatar thing from the beginning the TSA maybe would have only earned half the animosity they deserve" and go on about how sometimes focus groups actually work that might bring out, you know, glaring errors in design.
But you know what? That doesn't fucking matter. What matters is that the American Public is crisis fatigued out. I am crisis fatigued. I turned on the news yesterday to find out that we discovered another underwear bomber and that the design was "sophisticated" and a dog and pony show was trotted out on the Today show by the fucking CIA.
I want you, every one of you, to ask yourselves, when was the last time the CIA did intelligence press releases? It's like science by press release - you get bogus shit like cold fusion because what it's really about is someone trying to stoke his budget.
And that's what it's all about. It's just corporate welfare and agency empire building, marketed through fear. On a societal level I can't think of anything more evil except waging war through bogus excuses all the way from the Gulf of Tonkin to GWB's "weapons of mass destruction" bullshit.
And we're going to shovel good money after bad because so many honest, hard working people are just trying to get through life without increasing the rage factor and generating more heart disease worrying about shit like this.
Jeg opgiv.
I am so disheartened.
--
BMO
Postscript:
About sophistication:
The fucking Soviet Union of the 1980s could launch nuclear tipped missiles and have them explode over a US city with an accuracy of a couple of feet and this was entirely credible. Comparing the war on terror enemies to the enemy of the Cold War, I do not find any fucking sophistication. Yesterday's announcement of more underwear bombs paired with the word "sophisticated" made me want to scream. What an abuse of language. What fucking Newspeak. What fucking doublethink.
Re: (Score:2)
What a fucking awesome rant! Preach on, bro! My kingdom for a mod point.
Re: (Score:2)
What did you just do?
Did you just compare me to George Carlin?
I am not worthy of such comparison. Not at all. George was miles more quick than I am. While he would have seen through the bullshit with the whole "underpants bomb is sophisticated" nonsense, he would have use funnier and more picturesque language that I have here. According to him, the best way to comedy is to take something normal and look at it from a 45 degree angle. I can only come up to 10 degrees.
What I posted was a gross approximati
Re:I was gonna write something... (Score:5, Insightful)
I turned on the news yesterday to find out that we discovered another underwear bomber and that the design was "sophisticated" and a dog and pony show was trotted out on the Today show by the fucking CIA.
I want you, every one of you, to ask yourselves, when was the last time the CIA did intelligence press releases?
This alone tells you that it's bullshit. Does anyone expect the CIA to play it straight? These guys invented "cannot confirm or deny", so when they confirm on national TV, you know it serves an agenda. Good post!
Separation of Church and State (Score:2)
That's the problem with separation of church and state. The government cannot use religion to inflict fear to get people to conform, so they have to resort to other tactics such as the war on terror. When people in power keep people in fear, the people in power can pretty much do whatever they want, whether church or state.
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see the separation of church and state as a problem.
If you want religion in your state, be prepared for the state being in your religion.
Be careful what you wish for.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the separation of church and state as a problem.
If you want religion in your state, be prepared for the state being in your religion.
Be careful what you wish for.
--
BMO
You miss my point. WIthout religion to control the masses, the state must resort to fear.
Re: (Score:2)
but wait...
The state is going to resort to fear regardless of whether it has religion under its wing. The powers are not mutually exclusive.
When the state and religion are the same, the state has both powers
When the state doesn't have religion, it has half the power of the previous statement.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
A problem for whom?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
When the state had both fear and religion, it used religion -- always better to blame god than the leaders, who could be killed. With religion, the fear was eternal damnation. Without religion, the state has to step up its fear-mongering, but still doesn't want the blame, so we still have an unidentifiable outside force that we, the populace have no control over. The war on terror is everywhere! Just like the devil Sure, I'll give up personal freedoms to let the government protect me from the unknown mo
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't read Taleb's book, The Black Swan [wikipedia.org], you might consider doing so. Aside from the much hyped theory of improbable events he talks about how he has dealt with the insane diarrheal flow of information that this world tends to create. Mostly by ignoring the little things (ie. what passes for news these days).
Don't read the blogs (oops), the news sites, the advertisements. Don't watch TV. Mostly read real stuff / think and just glance at headlines now and again.
The headlines will of course indic
Re: (Score:2)
I have wondered why the focus on commercial passenger traffic
The army always fights the last war. The Polish had their cavalry. The French had their Maginot Line. 'Tis always thus.
A terrorist with even a tiny bit of creativity would do something in a shopping mall on Black Friday
Or, if we're going to stay within the idea of air transport, the long lines at Security.
Others have mentioned trains and buses.
It's harder to fly a bus or train into a building. That said, subways have been targets before. The p
Avatar (Score:2)
"To quiet privacy concerns, the authorities are also spending $7 million to 'remove the human factor from the image review process' and replace the passenger's image with an avatar."
http://www.imaxmelbourne.com.au/images/uploads/Avatar/Avatar-BIG-1.jpg [imaxmelbourne.com.au]
"Sorry, buddy, you're gonna have to check that bow."
Devil's Advocate (Score:3)
I 'll play devil's advocate below- so, under the assumption that the TSA and their paraphernalia are vital in present-day USA:
.. spending millions [..] upgrading magnetometers to the new body scanners ..
As most of you probably know, the "new scanner" operates at the THz range: that wavelength is being exploited because a) it "sees" through clothes and b) it gives a nice contrast.
A little more detail: the incoming radiation mostly penetrates clothing both in its way in and out -- i.e., penetrates clothing in its way in, does not penetrate skin and instead gets reflected back, it then passes again through clothing on its way out and gets registered on the machine. Now, other material (say a ceramic knife, that does not register in the magnetometer) or a "suspicious" looking box strapped on the body, will reflect the incoming THz radiation but on a different way: by taking advantage of this, a contrast image can be constructed, and what is not skin becomes conspicuous. So you can obvisouly see why this is something an authority appreciates, and you would be in denial if you don't believe that the scanners are here to stay. Sorry, but now they have established their foothold in reality, so you have to learn to get used to them being around for quite a while.
.. spending $7 million [to] replace the passenger's image with an avatar
Okay, now I am done playing advocate- my points:
a) $7 million for software development seems a lot in the expensive side, or so I think. Anyway the federal budget for toilet paper is probably higher. And
b) most importantly, couldn't that had been implemented from the start of the project, out of respect for the citizen? I mean, how hard can it be? Is there a reason why this "extra humiliation" factor had to linger around for so long?
c) I wouldn't hate TSA so much: the guilt will be hard to cope with once the cumulative radiation damage becomes apparent on its not very bright staff. I don't think there will ever be a concensus regarding the damage one gets (or not) from the respective radiation: just see how after more than a decade the cellphone radiation is still supposed to be under debate, and how results are "inconlcusive".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Informative)
As most of you probably know, the "new scanner" operates at the THz range
If only that were universally true. The THz or millimeter wave scanners are in use in some airports, and I have no problem going through them, although sometimes I opt out out of patriotic duty to make life difficult for TSA.
The problem is that most US airports in fact have the x-ray backscatter scanners. Now, I know that if the device is operating within it's design parameters, the dose you get from it is significantly less than the one you get from actually flying. But even before you start to include factors like a) the dose is concentrated all in the outer skin layers b) it's being operated by a high school dropout, the design dose is NOT ZERO. When you have two technologies, one of which uses ionizing radiation and one which doesn't, yet they accomplish the same goal, why in all the hells would you choose to subject everyone to ioniziing radiation?
Re: (Score:2)
b) most importantly, couldn't that had been implemented from the start of the project, out of respect for the citizen?
(emphasis added)
That made me laugh in a sad, sad way. I wouldn't even say that respect for citizens seems low on their list of priorities, rather it seems the opposite is quite important to them.
Re: (Score:2)
b) most importantly, couldn't that had been implemented from the start of the project, out of respect for the citizen?
The entire purpose of the TSA is to acclimate citizens to disrespectful treatment by authorities. It's for your own good.
i feel sorry for the guys watching the screen (Score:3)
I know everybody is hung up on 'oh noes, that tsa screener is going to see a blue image of my naked body'. Am I the only one that feels sorry for the guy/gal that actually has to sit all day and watch naked blue bodies? for every swedish bikini model that passes, i you have at least 10 overweight slobs. How can the screener ever have sex again after staring at these blobs going by day in, day out?
The terrorists win (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt al Qaeda had any intention of this bomb going off. They put it in somebody's underwear, just so Americans would now have to strip to get on a plane. Government officials need to stop going on TV and saying that the terrorists "hate freedom." Because they do. And if the terrorist's goal is to attack freedom, guess what, government? YOU'RE LETTING THEM WIN. Put an X-Ray machine, a Geiger counter, and a dog at every terminal in the country. That's it. When the terrorists have a bomb that isn't made of metal AND is made of a chemical the dog can't detect, send a sample of that chemical to every airport in the country, and teach the dogs to smell that too.
Oblig. (Score:2)
Have Issues? (Score:3)
I have issues! And no one is giving me $90M to fix them...
Re: (Score:2)
I have issues! And no one is giving me $90M to fix them...
You did not reach the minimum number of 666 points on the G&C (Greed and Corruption) scale. I'm sorry sir, but you failed to qualify for the special edition "bailout" checks.
Re: (Score:2)
dammit
No more TSA... (Score:3)
Yet ANOTHER reason to get rid of the TSA. We waste dollar after dollar on that stupid agency. And according to their own stats, we're no safer now than in 2001. Moreover, from a constitutional standpoint:
1. The Federal govt has the right to secure the borders -- this is the job for border patrol, NOT the TSA
2. Inter-state flights - not within Federal jurisdiction
3. That leaves flights that go across state lines, but do not leave the US.
The only place where the TSA arguably should have any authority is #3. And if we do #1, #2, and track & deport known terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, then the need for #3 becomes very minimal.
Let's face it, the TSA is filled with a bunch of inept, under-achieving goons, who have shaky justification for their jobs (at best) and should be replaced with private security companies. Such companies could be under appropriately laws to make sure they can be prosecuted for violating the 4th amendment, civil liberties, etc. and they'd have plenty of incentives to do things right...
OK, rant ended.
Anybody else hear the song .... (Score:2)
Do you want to date my avatar...
Perhaps this will increase the job satisfaction and reduce depression amongst TSA screeners. Seriously...who would want that job? For every 1 person they might want to see naked and put their hands on...they are required to look at and feel up a hundred more that they would rather just run away from.
Ever wonder if the bomber WASN'T a double agent? (Score:3)
I mean, what a great mind-fuck to AQ. What if they caught the guy, stuck him in a cell in a friendly country, then decided that they'd do a little psychological warfare and said this guy was a double agent all along. I mean, if there aren't any embedded agents, why not freak them out and have them wondering how many people are working for the other side?
And it seems odd that they out a double agent as intentionally one, not just some poor schmuck that got compromised.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that picture is anybody but some random taxi driver in NYC that's been moderately Photoshopped?
(Assuming this whole silly story has any basis in fact.)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe not... (Score:2)
This is the same thing that the TSA previously dismissed as "some guy" making a "crude attempt" at getting around screening procedures. At least they are acknowledging it now.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/03/viral-video-about-body-scanners.html [tsa.gov]
They have also said that these things are completely safe despite inadequate testing. Or that there are sufficient procedures in place to protect people's privacy. I wonder how long it will take for them to change their minds on that too.
this is about money (Score:3)
they already switched to avatars (Score:4, Informative)
The airport in Bozeman, Montana did at least.
The screen shows just a generic outline with a highlighted area of where something was detected.
However, this doesn't end the privacy concerns. The device still has a full-res picture (visualization) in it, it just doesn't put it on the screen. And I don't believe for a minute that the device doesn't store the picture despite what they say. If I were designing the system, I'd store the picture at least for a couple days.
What happens if they are doing testing where they try to sneak weapons on board and they make it on? You would want the data so it can be analyzed after the fact to see why the system didn't detect them. What happens if a plane blows up? You would want to look at the images to see if the software missed a carried device.
There's no way you'd just throw the data away, it really harms your capability to improve the system over time.
So I still have privacy concerns.
...Profit! (Score:2)
1) Put up prop booths with no real functionality
2) Tell everyone it is a sophisticated scanning system when it is actually just a prop.
3) Pay people to occaisonally go through and "get caught", thereby reinforcing the illusion.
4) Profit!
Then again, I suppose there is a good chance that is exactly what they are already doi*(#&)^)$^NO CARRIER
it's the TSA game! (Score:3)
"my avatar has brass knuckles. 2 points."
"fool, kneel before me! my avatar has two rocket launchers, 99 energy points, and ten grenades!"
meanwhile, far behind, the $8-an-hour "agents" are hassling a little old lady with a walker and leading another Congressman into the back room holding cells for having a tie clasp.
Can we just get rid of... (Score:2)
... this freaking DHS + TSA clusterfuck already? Have they done anything better than what was done before without being completely moronic, stupid, and wasting money. As for post 9/11, all you had to do was coordinate the then-existing agencies together better. (I actually was working on a project for that, until the DHS was launched) It's madness. You know what "hope and change" what could have been? Get rid of this crap.
Re:Not perfect???? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the imperfection means you can casually walk onto a plane with a pocketful of 12 inch blades [cnet.com], then it's worth taking a bit of notice.
Re:Not perfect???? (Score:4, Interesting)
How to stop a determined suicide bomber getting onto a flight with a device powerful enough to down the plane ... you can't it's impossible
All the security at airports does two things only :
1) makes the passengers feel safe enough so that they will continue to fly (this is debatable...)
2) deter all but the most determined and clever enough terrorists ...who hopefully the government are already aware of by other means
Re:Not perfect???? (Score:5, Insightful)
3) treats small children and little old ladies like terrorism suspects because their 15 minute training video neglected to mention that their standard issue plastic badge and 12-pack of Krispy Kremes are not substitutes for common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not perfect???? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, because radicalized old ladies would never blow up a plane: they have too much to live for.
If you truly feel that "radicalized old ladies" are that much of a threat to our society, then please come forth with your blue-haired statistics before Congress.
Toss something in there about why we won't "think of the children", and you'll have a nice one-two whammy to hit common sense with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. The only reason any of us do not slaughter hundreds of innocent men, women, and children with a suicide bomb is because we have so much to live for. Very logical. That's why every suicide attempt always includes multiple homicides. Because if you're gonna die you may as well take as many people with you as possible. It's amazing that blowing yourself up in a particularly long and winding security line at the airport isn't more popular than it is. Thank god we have brave pedophile peeping tom pervs to p
Re:Not perfect???? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) deter all but the most determined and clever enough terrorists ...
There's nothing particularly clever about beating security - the C4 goes in the same body cavities as people use every day to get drugs and cellphones into prisons.
Or if you prefer liquid explosives, just get several people with permitted-size bottles of liquid to go through and combine the liquid in a bigger bottle (or plastic bag) on the other side.
Or...any of many other obvious ways to do it.
As for determination...they're religious whacko suicide bombers. Enough said?
(All this assumes that terrorists are magically impotent if they can't get through Airport security, which is laughable...just bomb the queues for the scanners)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As part of the larger pattern of US Corp/Gov't actions, it's the only answer that makes sense.
Re:Not perfect???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? What's he going to do with them that he couldn't do on the ground?
You can't hijack a plane and crash it into a building anymore. That shit stopped working before 9/11 was even over. Why should I give a fuck if another passenger has a pocketknife? I don't care if they have a pocketknife on a bus, do I?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not perfect???? (Score:5, Funny)
When the imperfection means you can casually walk onto a plane with a pocketful of 12 inch blades [cnet.com], then it's worth taking a bit of notice.
But at least they protect the other passengers from your dangerous insulin pump.
Re:Not perfect???? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is we don't know how imperfect it is. Considering these machines allegedly broke a medical device in recent news. Considering that U.S. citizens are being made to go through humiliating procedures that these machines are a part of and may or may not work well? "Exactly how bad the body scanners are is not being divulged publicly" is a big thing.
Also $90 million? That is $90 million less towards the debt. That is $90 million that could be towards STEM promotion in education. That is $90 million that is money that could have been used as an incentive or subsidy to get businesses to hire more employees (if you believe in trickle down) or applied to the people directly (if you believe in trickle up). That $90 million could pay ~5500 people to work for one year at minimum wage.
Whether you think it could go elsewhere or no where, why spend it on a program that isn't working? That's just direct cost anyways.
Think about how many people fly. Let's make this easier, how many people fly for business. How much time is wasted going through this extra security that may or may not be working to suitable levels. Multiple that extra time by their salaries. That is another economic hit.
Re: (Score:2)
You know... since we could spend the $90 million on hiring subsidies that will really just fund companies that would be hiring anyway, or giving a single dollar to one third of the country's population, why not spend it elsewhere, like supporting America's technology industry? We could be funding the software and other engineers who are needed to fix the machines.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, it won't mostly go to that- and it's being spent on a system with dubious use to begin with.
Sorry...it's money that could and SHOULD be spent elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and let's break all our windows to give work to the glaziers.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. All government spending is just returning money to the public, in one form or another. It doesn't "create" jobs, it doesn't "subsidize" anything in the long run.
My point is that arguments about all the things the money could do are equally ridiculous. The one thing the money should do is never be collected from the public in the first place, but it's too late for that.
That is $90 million that could be towards STEM promotion in education. That is $90 million that is money that could have been used as an incentive or subsidy to get businesses to hire more employees (if you believe in trickle down) or applied to the people directly (if you believe in trickle up). That $90 million could pay ~5500 people to work for one year at minimum wage.
Re: (Score:2)
WAT? You do realize that I was making fun of you by using the broken windows fallacy?
Investing in STEM education is an actual investment in the productivity of our nation. Paying glaziers to fix our windows is not an investment.
Teach a man to fish. Give a man a fish. Teaching a man to fish is useful. Just giving him fish is not as useful (unless, of course, not having fish is the only thing holding him back.)
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy that government bureaucracy will make more productive choices than the free market.
Which it very well might, but just assuming the conclusion doesn't really make for a compelling argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we have too many politicians and they're stinking up the place. Give a few away, suddenly things are smelling better.
FTFY :)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is , it wont stop the terrorist plan that accounts for these machines. The machines stopped you from wearing a belt buckle and carrying your train pass through. There are documented cases of metal blades getting through. Fortunately the blades ( and your belt buckle ) were not intended for maicious use. It is also forutnate that in both of these cases the hardened cockpit doors would have prevented a major tragedy that is only possible on or with an airplane. You could use the knife to hack up peo
Re: (Score:3)
It was sensitive enough to pick up my wallet in my back pocket which contained no metal other than what is found inside of credit cards and my Patco FreedomCard train pass. It also picked up my belt buckle... small and thin... not one of those WWF styles.
Notice that all of those things were on the front or back of your body. Anything on the side - where your body is not a backdrop to provide contrast - is practically invisible to the machine.
if those $90 million machines prevent just one terrorist plot that may not have been picked up by the previous generation of detectors, then it will have paid for itself multiple times over.
What if they don't make any difference at all? You know the TSA has not caught one single terrorist since the creation of the agency. Not one. They have, however, really decimated the dignity of the american traveler.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, all this "security" does force bad people to work a little harder to bypass it. And that extra work means more chances to foil plots before they hatch. Someone mentioned the possibility of combining many small containers of liquid explosive into a larger bomb. Which would probably work if they all made it through. But it would require several conspirators instead of a single one, leading to several more ways for the plan to fall apart, hopefully before it even got to the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit suspicious of your nearly 100% positive review of these machines. They have been proven to have a 50% false positive rate and they only work for things like wallets and belt buckles and not for flat pancakes of plastic explosive taped to your sides and maybe your stomach and back as well. You did read about Jon Corbett's test right?
So if you are interested in seeing who has the fattest wallets to steal from they are superb machines. If you want to prevent people from bringing high explosives on t
Re:Not perfect???? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
it is fun to dismiss this so casually, but when you look at the fact that the company that was awarded the money is tightly integrated, if not owned outright, by former members of government, then this becomes corruption of the highest order. Just by having a few friends in good places, you can get a $90 million contract for things that dont do their primary purpose as well as what was already in place. In government terms, this isnt a huge amount of money, at the personal level of the crooks pushing this s
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they're hiring Cameron to replace the images with the blue guys from Avatar.
Re: (Score:2)
So does the average TSA agent view Bin Laden's killing the same way that they probably view the moon landings?
Re: (Score:2)
Please, they'll see an Arabic man with a beard and turban, they won't care who it is.