Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Security

The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners - Now With Surveillance Camera Footage 219

McGruber writes "Jonathan Corbett, the subject of the earlier Slashdot Story: 'The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners,' has an update for us. His video showing him wandering through a nude body scanner with undetected objects is now complete with the feeds from TSA's security cameras at the checkpoint."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners - Now With Surveillance Camera Footage

Comments Filter:
  • by santax ( 1541065 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @08:17PM (#40392537)
    You would know after just 10 secs in the vid...
  • by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @08:18PM (#40392545) Homepage
    FOIA, apparently. WTFV.
  • Re:Cool video (Score:5, Informative)

    by tsaoutofourpants ( 2615595 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @08:42PM (#40392791)
    Video creator here. I actually did it with both the new L-3 ATD (the kind where they allegedly do not look at the nude pictures the machines generate) and the Rapiscan backscatter x-ray where they still visually examine your nude body. The vulnerability I identified applies to both technologies.
  • Let's see (Score:5, Informative)

    by kilodelta ( 843627 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @08:56PM (#40392949) Homepage
    I have gone through TSA's rigamarole before the pat down/body scan. Let me tell you those scans of your carry on - they're pretty much useless. I had blades, screwdrivers, wire, circuit boards and a 1lb bag of Peanut M&M's go though without a hitch.
  • by tsaoutofourpants ( 2615595 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @09:06PM (#40393045)
    The equipment uses EM radiation to create an image of your body without your clothes with significant detail and clarity... what would *you* call them?
  • by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @09:35PM (#40393337)

    The TSA has other methods for security, and is choosing to continue with these naked pictures/shameful patdowns despite public outcry, and it wouldn't be American to not do something about it.

    If 10 people make the attempt at different airports throughout the country, and detection rate is 95%... the odds of at least one of them slipping through is 37%. Now, who here thinks the TSA screeners are that good? This guy's contention is that they are substantially worse.. and he's probably right. And food for thought: Even if the detection rate was 99%, it would only take 69 people to have a 50/50 chance of getting an illicit item on board. How many terrorists are (allegedly) out there again? If you do the math, the 16 terrorists that caused 9/11 and the resulting economic downfall have cost us maybe $100 billion each.

    "Try smuggling this on board along with 69 other people, and you've got a 50% chance of causing The Great Satan 1.4 billion US dollars worth of economic damage."

    That's an excellent promotion when you consider you've only got a 3.2% chance of dying in the process. We should be thankful terrorists suck at math. :\ If our own soldiers were this effective at causing economic damage, we would be very feared indeed. Unfortunately, we play by the rules. Our enemies don't.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @10:45PM (#40393873)

    "Some stranger can see your wiener" - works on religious folk
    "It could increase the chance of getting cancer" - works on organic buyers
    "It doesn't fucking work" - works on slashdot

  • by ICLKennyG ( 899257 ) on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @11:43PM (#40394269)

    How many times have you heard... Dubya as "President George Herbert Walker Bush?"

    Well considering that 'Dubya' is President George Walker Bush (43, Pres. 2001-2009, A.K.A. George W. Bush, Shrub, The Decider, or "Mission Accomplished") and his father is President George Herbert Walker Bush (41, Pres. 1989-1993, A.K.A. George H.W. Bush, Bush Sr., or "Read my lips, no new taxes") it would make sense that the answer to that question would be never.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush [wikipedia.org]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21, 2012 @01:57AM (#40394941)

    Imagine the embarrassment if you were transgender.

    I am a trans (MTF) and fly 4-8 times a month both up and down the west coast and transcontinental. I am always neatly dressed in a professional manner, am tall but trim and fit with feminine features. I can expect to be scanned and patted down about 2 of 3 times when entering a TSA check area. It's obvious that the TSA personnel are often not comfortable with me - I've heard almost every reason in the book why I need to be patted down: dress/skirt too long, blouse too flowing, didn't remove my jewelry (most women don't), "random check ma'am," simply "please come this way," and so on.

    On one trip to Sacramento last winter (I travel there monthly and they recognize me and I them), there was such a drama (I did nothing unusual and said nothing but "yes, no and thank you") that the suit supervising that shift chased me down after leaving the check area and asked to talk to me further! Eventually, he thanked me and apologized for all the 'extra attention.' I wrote to TSA HQ on their website and thanked TSA for finally acknowledging their over zealousness in hopes this might encourage them to be more sensible, but the excessive attention continues to this day.

    I offered to do a transgender sensitivity orientation with the Sacramento staff, which I've done for school systems, public safety organizations and private firms; but of course I never heard back from them about the matter. The whole mess makes one wonder what the ___ their prioritizes are, and what is the likelihood that those intent upon harm are missed when they are so focused on a mature trans-woman they see repeatedly. I've even been interviewed and groped by the same staff on more than one occasion.

    For me this is very little about transgender rights and respect and a heck of a lot more about why I sometimes need 2-4 staff to attend to me and the inherent system wide security risks occurring from this unnecessary diversion of resources.

  • by 0111 1110 ( 518466 ) on Thursday June 21, 2012 @04:16AM (#40395615)

    A DUI/DWI checkpoint exists to catch drunk drivers, and they tend to be fairly effective at it. The cops also don't harass you, they check to make sure you don't smell like you took a bath in a martini, and let you go. They don't force you to get out, grope your genitals and then take naked photos of you. They don't give a crap if you bring a bag of candy with you - they just don't want you to drive drunk (which we can all agree is reasonable).

    Actually that hasn't been my experience. I don't drink and I most certainly did not smell from alcohol and I was attacked and severely beaten and then arrested on a whole bunch of false charges including a felony charge at a DUI checkpoint. I was even charged with a DUI until I finally begged a cop at the station to let me take the breathalyzer test to prove my innocence. When it did they dropped the DUI charge but left all the others. I wouldn't play their reindeer games. I chose to remain silent and refused to answer any of their questions and did not sufficiently respect the authority of one particular angry cop who nearly killed me because of it.

    Even though I was badly beaten with my face and head covered in blood and arrested and thrown in jail no one touched my genitals at any time. The part about the TSA patdown being the same as a police patdown is utter BS. Probably because the cops don't relish the idea of fondling your genitals. At least if you're male. Unlike the TSA agents who probably applied for the job because it turns them on.

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...