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."
Cool video (Score:5, Interesting)
Lol, nice. Of course the software the L3 scanners use doesn't show any 'nude' pics anymore, the TSA just gets the warning from the software if it thinks there is a weapons with a generic outline of a human form with an arrow. They used to keep the nude images in a remote room but the last software release I am aware of ditched that too. Ironically, when the software was updated the worry was that it would be less effective and it seems they might be correct. However, were I planning to smuggle something on the plane myself I would hardly count on the scanner not picking it up.
Re:Cool video (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we need body cavity searches. It is the only way we'll be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
no, they need to take off, and nuke the airport from orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
everyone should remove their clothes and nude the airport from orbit!
Re:Cool video (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why we need body cavity searches. It is the only way we'll be safe.
You missed an important part -- who gets searched.
Good airport security will not be reestablished until every TSA worker and supervisor in passenger and baggage screening is subject to a body cavity search at the start and end of every shift. That's the only way to prevent TSA theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cool video (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cool video (Score:5, Insightful)
You go first, AC. Full disclosure. Do you in fact work for the DHS or TSA?
Re:Cool video (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part of the untold truth is that any intelligent adult can pull off acts of terror that could kill hundreds if not thousands of people...... without going near an airport.
Please don't make me brainstorm for all you mindless people wondering what I mean. Big groups of people can be found all over the place.... you can imagine how right I am, or not.
The truth is, the sheer benevolence of our humanity is why most of us are alive. Most people wouldn't kill others if not in defense, and so we are alive. It doesn't take a genius to see what *could* happen, but *doesn't* happen. We are lucky to be so well protected by our nature. The police, TSA, your dad, or your God will have little impact on your safety.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need a big group of people. A cook and QA person within any food processing factory would be enough.
Hit McDonalds ketchup supply chain with something that takes a day to be visible in the host. They'll shut it down quickly once detected but you could still impact a very large number of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but have a bomb-repelling rock that protects me when I walk down a crowded city street, so I'm only concerned when I get on an airplane....
Re:Cool video (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cool video (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part of the untold truth is that any intelligent adult can pull off acts of terror that could kill hundreds if not thousands of people...... without going near an airport.
Yes, but that isn't what they are trying to do. I agree that the TSA is ridiculous, but you can't deny that people keep trying to bomb aircraft in the air while ignoring softer targets. So the basic idea is correct - make aircraft more secure - it is just the implementation that is faulty.
We actually have enough security against suicide bombers and hijackers without the nude scanners. The only explosives you can sneak on board are hard to detonate and people will notice you trying and restrain you. The only weapons you can sneak on board are not enough to subdue an entire aircraft of people who know you probably intend to ram them into a building, and besides which the cockpit door is locked.
Metal detectors and x-ray scans of luggage are more than adequate. The ban on liquids is pointless.
Re:Cool video (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. If I were given the power to reshape the TSA, I wouldn't get rid of it entirely. I'd X-Ray all luggage, pulling aside anything suspicious looking for a more thorough check. (This would include checked bags, not just carry on bags.) I'd have the metal detectors in place. I'd also station plain-clothes agents throughout the airport looking for people who were acting suspiciously. If someone was spotted acting suspiciously, they could be followed by the agents and/or surveillance cameras.
Once you were on the airplane, I'd have the cockpit door locked and reinforced to prevent entry. The pilots would be under orders to perform an emergency landing if something happened in the passenger area no matter how many passengers the hijackers threatened to kill. The pilots would be absolved of any liability for passenger injury/death in those cases as their job would be to get the plane on the ground ASAP.
Add in some passenger education ("don't take bags from strangers, report any suspicious activity") and terrorists will find attacking airports/airplanes a difficult proposition. It won't be 100% protection, but then again no security ever will be. However, pouring billions of dollars in an attempt to go from 99.99% security to 99.991% security seems wasteful (especially when the new security measures are so invasive). (NOTE: I said "in an attempt" because I don't think they actually do increase security.)
Re: (Score:3)
The pilots would be absolved of any liability for passenger injury/death in those cases as their job would be to get the plane on the ground ASAP.
Go talk to someone who accidentally hit another person with their car, through no fault of their own, if a "not guilty" verdict for manslaughter eased their conscience. No liability is nice, but only a sociopath would be able to dissociate themselves from the situation entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
Any terrorist who wanted to cause mayhem now wouldn't even get on a plane. They'd go to a major airport during an extremely busy season (Thanksgiving or Christmas would be good) and do something horrible in the middle of the security line. You'd kill a lot of people and disrupt air travel in that major airport for days. The TSA's invasive security measures won't prevent that (not that they've prevented a single terrorist attack on a plane anyway). If anything, by creating a bottleneck, they almost invit
Re: (Score:3)
I was actually looking at the information provided to the screeners on Monday. I had cargo shorts on, and it did flag my side pocket which had excess fabric. It almost looks reasonable compared to the previous information. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the original images are still being recorded, although there should be a little greater anonymity to it now.
Still doesn't change the fact that the technology can't really work without excessive radiation, nor the fact that it does nothing to enhance secur
Re:Cool video (Score:4, Insightful)
ie. C4 can fit in body cavities. Anybody who thinks terrorists don't know this is stupid beyond belief.
Conclusion: The machines are little more than magic rocks and there's far less terrorists out there than Government wants you to believe.
Investing in strong cockpit doors, sky marshals and skilled behavioral profilers at the boarding gates would keep us safe. Old fashioned metal detectors would make sure the rednecks don't "forget" to check their firearms before boarding.
sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean America was always kind of overrated but Sept. 11th really finished it off. Now the constitution is just an annoying old scroll that congress has to work around rather than an important document to be valued and upheld.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the American People ruined America after 11th Sep by letting Congress (and their state and local governments, who use the same excuses) act unchecked.
“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
Attributed to Thomas Jefferson says the I
Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the American People ruined America after 11th Sep by letting Congress (and their state and local governments, who use the same excuses) act unchecked.
I'm sorry, but I've got to ask... what exactly were you thinking the American people should have done? Vote for the other party that does whatever they want when they're in power? Write some letters that aren't accompanied by nice lobbyist cheques?
Let's face it. There isn't anything legal their citizens could really do. Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change (and yes, shutting down or preventing the paranoid state is radical). Only problem with that is the people are happy enough, enough of the time that they won't go to war against their government over the periods they're not happy.
Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change (and yes, shutting down or preventing the paranoid state is radical). Only problem with that is the people are happy enough, enough of the time that they won't go to war against their government over the periods they're not happy.
I'm afraid not. Protests are far more effective for getting changes enacted. Revolts, like we saw in the middle east last year, can produce change but they also result in many undesirable consequences. They are simply too destructive.
If you could mobilize a couple million people to march on Washington every weekend for a couple of months - the TSA would be no more. The problem is that most Americans want the TSA - they make them feel safe. Personally, I think they're stupid but that doesn't change the fact that the TSA are here because the American people want them. Want to get rid of the TSA - educate the population. These videos will go further towards getting rid of the TSA than anything the author could do with a gun.
Re: (Score:3)
If you could mobilize a couple million people to march on Washington every weekend for a couple of months - the TSA would be no more.
I don't like TSA, but I will not join your march, simply because I'm too far away. Flying there every weekend is not an option, even if TSA would have made an exception for protesters.
You have to gather the whole crowd in situ - and that is not easy. You cannot expect that every 10th polled person will gladly join you. In general I have to agree with the GP - people haven
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem is that most Americans want the TSA - they make them feel safe"
Yep, and they are all idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
I think at first you would have been correct that most people support the TSA, but I believe public opinion has changed now to the point that I think there is a slight majority who are against the TSA. As more and more people get violated at the airport public opinion has nowhere to go but further against the TSA. If there were a national referendum so that people could vote directly for or against the TSA, I believe the TSA would lose.
As far as marches go, they don't work anymore. The government would send
Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's face it. There isn't anything legal their citizens could really do. Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change...
Well, they could vote. In many if not most major races, there actually are third party candidates.
The biggest enemy of the American people is not their lack of possible legal actions -- they could easily vote most of these people out of office. The problem is that most of the public has been brainwashed to believe that they should only vote for "someone who can win," which generally only means someone of two parties. If you change that perspective, you immediately could shake up most of the government.
But if you can't even convince people that their leaders are bad enough to vote outside the two-party system, there's no way in hell you're going to get them to arm themselves in insurrection. This is just a stupid argument, because way before you could get a real revolt going, you could certainly convince people to start voting yahoos out of office... by perfectly legal means.
Even within the two parties, they could actually show up to things like caucuses, hang around and get nominated as delegates to state parties -- like, for example, the Ron Paul people have done in a number of states. (For the record, I'm not a Paul supporter, but I admire what his folks are doing.) The Republicans appear to be fighting the Paulites tooth-and-nail at local conventions to disenfranchise them, but they can only do so much. The Paul people have taken over state parties in a number of states. You can bet that those libertarian officials will at least have an impact on state politics, and we have yet to see how much of a hoopla they can raise at the national Republican convention.
Will this completely change the Republican party? I don't know. But there's a reason the mainstream Republicans have downplayed Paul at every turn... he doesn't play by their rules. He's not a "player." He has views that don't change for the most part. He consistently tells things like he sees them, rather than making crap up that people want to hear. I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say, but his efforts show that someone who has the right charisma can make a big impact... we'll have to see how far he goes.
Anyhow, there are lots of legal things the citizens of the U.S. could do. It's not like there are laws preventing you from voting for someone other than a Democrat or Republican. The problem is just convincing enough people that it's worthwhile -- which, again, would be a heck of a lot easier than inciting them to insurrection... so start with getting them to just show up to a voting booth first, rather than staying home and watching the lastest episode of reality TV or whatever the heck it is that people do. After you get them to the voting booth, you can invite them out to your militia or whatever the hell it is that you do.
Re: (Score:2)
We are attentive. Many are aware of the corruption, greed, etc.
"Many"? I very, very highly doubt that. I've noticed quite a few people don't support the TSA anymore, but after 9/11, knee-jerk reactions were rampant. The Patriot Act, idiotic wars, the TSA... all of them just slipped through.
Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
That was the whole point. We're broke, and still spending money on our war machine, living in fear, thanks to the media, and well on our way to becoming a police state. The 9/11 attack was damn near 100% successful, and if we keep on our current track, it won't be long before it's at 100%. It doesn't matter if we destroy the perpetrators of the attack if they're goal is achieved, we still loose.
Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are almost right. There is a bit of information missing. We are not ALL broke. The issue is right here in America. Some people is making a lot of money with all the events since Sept. 11th, the scare tactics, and the wars. And these are the same that lobby congress so things keep going like they are. The issue is that their interests are opposed to the interest of the common citizen. It is not about catching the bad guys anymore, it is about a small percentage of the population making billions while kee
Re: (Score:3)
The 9/11 attack was damn near 100% successful
The 9/11 attack was far more successful than anybody could ever have dreamed. Look at how it changed the mindset of the people and how the government can now do anything it wants to and spend any amount of money just by saying a few magic words.
The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (Score:5, Interesting)
After watching the original video some months ago, I had my first confrontation with the nude body scanners in May. I initially wasn't sure if opting out would be easy or hard, but when I saw the woman in front of me (with a toddler in her arms) have the cardboard cutout in front of the "out of service" metal detector moved, I thought "Well, it's just as easy as asking for that."
However, when I requested to not use the scanner, I wasn't allowed to walk through the metal detector despite asking for it (it worked; I saw the lights flashing on it). I was told to wait where I was for a pat down. When the TSA worker walked me to the screening area, he politely told me what he was going to do before he did it, and proceeded to feel along my arms, waistline and chest/back. However, when he went to do my legs, he went straight up from my ankles to my crotch, squishing my genitals into my perineum (I was wearing loose sports shorts). I jumped up a flash of panic, and he told me to stay still, because he was going to do it again on the other leg!
I've traveled across the globe and gone through many security processes (including Israel, where I was subjected to a strip search), and this was by far the most invasive, mortifying experience I've ever had. I found myself sitting by my gate feeling ashamed of what just happened, and suddenly I I understood where those cheesy-seeming accounts of molestation/fondling victims really come from. I've never understood, until now, just how it feels to be groped unwillingly, and how those emotions feel exactly as they are described by sexual assault victims. It's a sick feeling you get in your stomach when someone does something to you without your permission, and you are helpless to stop them. I learned that from the TSA.
I'm not comparing the magnitude of my experience to those of rape victims or children that have been abused, but just the fact that going through a security screening at an American airport jars memories of those horror stories is enough for me to take action and support Jonathan Corbett's cause, and I hope you do, too. 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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Next time just pop a viagra before your flight and get your pat down with a stiffy and a huge smile on your face. See how enthusiastic the TSA agent is on his next groping. The emotions you feel are all about having power taken from you. Take that power back. Show them who is really in charge of your body and do it proudly.
Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I did nothing unusual and said nothing but "yes, no and thank you"
Try, "yes, no, and fuck you". No reason to be polite to your assailants.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been taking the train ever since the latest changes.
It costs more, it takes two days and several hours to my usual destination, it leaves me with a longer distance from the nearest stop to my final destination and gets in at 3 in the morning.
On the plus side, it's actually fun.
It will not, however, work for the next time I want to visit Iceland.
Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone would be better off with ZERO security at the check points.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, whaddya want?
We didn't carpet-bomb Iraq or Afghanistan with H-bombs and turn them into glass parking lots for Disney-Middle-East, nor did we drop enough nerve gas to float a cruise ship across in either country.
Sheesh!
You just can't make some people happy.
No matter how much napalm you use!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how you did your math, but wouldn't 10 people each with a 5% chance of success have close to 50% overall success? With a 1% success rate, 100 people would have close to 100% success and you'd only need 51 people for 50%.
You failed statistics. x over y where x is the chance of success and y is the total number of attempts. If it's a percentage, y is 100, otherwise y is the total possibilities. Multiply that by the number of occurrances. so (x/y)^z in C notation.
Re: (Score:3)
probability of detecting all 10 if probability of detecting one is 95% = 0.95^10 = 0.60
so, probability that at least one gets through = 1 - 0.60 = 0.40 (40%)
probability of detecting all 69 if probability of detecting one is 99% = 0.99^69 = 0.50
so, probability that at least one gets through = 1 - 0.50 = 0.50 (50%)
Re: (Score:3)
With a 1% success rate, 100 people would have close to 100% success and you'd only need 51 people for 50%.
So, wait a sec... you're telling me If I flip a coin with 2 sides twice, I'm guaranteed to get a heads?!? If I have a 6-sided die, and I roll it 6 times, I'm guaranteed to get a 6?!?
I need to book my flight to Vegas now. I've finally got that foolproof strategy to win at games of chance!
Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (Score:4, Interesting)
In Thailand my body search was a completely trouble free experience. It lasted approximately 10 seconds. The officer used the back of her hand and ran it through any part of drooped loose fitting clothing to make sure I'm not carrying something concealed and then waved me through. I don't think she even touched my crouch, probably stopped short by 10cm.
It is probably more effective than the TSA scan which is primarily concerned with making you uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Metal detectors. Bomb sniffing scanners. That's all we need. If anyone were to set up an airline that used just those things I'd pay a 50% premium (perhaps more) on my tickets just to avoid the
Let's see (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I'm aware, regulations do not currently prohibit screwdrivers (7 inches in length or shorter), wire, circuit boards, or candy. Now blades are another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I'm aware, regulations do not currently prohibit screwdrivers (7 inches in length or shorter), wire, circuit boards, or candy.
Luckily for any would-be terrorists, the TSA doesn't employ any devices that allow them to detect that the gummi bears in a bag are made out of C4. Seriously, I can't bring 8 ounces of liquid, but I can bring 5 pounds of a gel substance?
There are literally hundreds of more examples of why the TSA is security theater and not real security.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the summer sausage he was toting looked like C4.
I can understand that the shape might get them worried, which is why a five pound bag of tiny candies doesn't seem to bother them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's see (Score:5, Funny)
sure you did, exactly where is the video for your clams again?
So just because they're shellfish they don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy?
I wish the video showed more (Score:3)
Not that I necessarily doubt that the video is genuine and shows what it claims, but he went to all the trouble to execute this, record handheld video, obtain the security camera footage, and sync it all together, but he doesn't once show us what he is supposedly sneaking through, other than a mostly unidentifiable glance in the security footage. He should have kept his camera filming the whole time while he walked into the bathroom, went into a stall, and then pulled out what he showed the camera. As it is, this could just as easily be a hoax. That "object" we see in the security cam footage could just as easily be a piece of fabric
The cordoned off metal detector in the video! (Score:2)
What is this guy trying to accomplish other than ensuring eventual double scanning?
It's like driving through a DUI/DWI checkpoint drunk to make a point. More checkpoints.. yay? I mean these things are supposed to be deterrents.
You can't cry "naked body scanning" and at the same time say that is not acting as a deterrent, right? What is the logic, someone can see my naked body in high def and count my pubes, but I can try to bring a prohibited item through anyway? Well, duuuuuuuuh, that doesn't mean we s
Re: (Score:2)
The justification for the TSA is that it works - they (supposedly) catch people who carry "dangerous" items on to planes.
The fact is, and as this video shows reasonably well, they don't catch dangerous items. You can, rather trivially, walk through TSA security checkpoints with a gun (and it has in fact happened, accidently, before).
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
Re:The cordoned off metal detector in the video! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
video (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the creator going on at quite a brisk pace to his speech
Talk about understatement. Turning the volume down was the only way I could figure out WTF was going on.
TSA Body Scanner fix? (Score:2)
Can't the TSA just have the people scanned twice? The 1st scan has the person facing the scanner to get the view as shown in the videos, and then the 2nd scan with the person turned 90 degrees. This would make it much harder to get something through the scanner without it showing up. Of course the body is usually wider side to side than it is front to back, but looking at the different body types that go through the scanner now, I don't think that would be an issue for most people.
This method would take
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can't the TSA just have the people scanned twice?
Better yet, can't the TSA just vanish? Instead of molesting people at airports and violating people's rights, let's just accept the minuscule risk of a terrorist attack (unlikely since we secure cockpit doors now) and be done with it.
Prestidigitation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading much? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate the TSA as much as the next guy, but I watched the video twice and it doesn't show the guy defeating the scanners. It just shows him going through the x-ray.. It doesn't prove that he sneaked anything through...
What a waste. (Score:2)
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:5, Funny)
Freedom scanners?
Re: (Score:2)
Terahertz wave scanners, while perhaps dry it's the correct technical term and due to a number of reasons humans absolutely love formality, even more so if they are in any station associated with power.
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:4, Insightful)
Terahertz wave scanners, while perhaps dry it's the correct technical term and due to a number of reasons humans absolutely love formality, even more so if they are in any station associated with power.
What planet are you from? Most humans HATE formality, it's only scientists, autistics, and a couple of other weirdos that like it.
How many times have you heard your dad ask your mom to move her "2.0L 2005 Honda Accord ES sedan" out of the driveway so he can pressure-wash the concrete?
How many times did you ask your parents if you could play your "Nintendo Entertainment System" for half an hour after your nightly bath?
Do you send a text to your girlfriend to tell her you will be late because "Interstate 675" is backed up, or because "675" or "the beltway" or "the highway" is backed up?
How many times have you heard President Obama announced as "President Barack Hussein Obama II," or Dubya as "President George Herbert Walker Bush?"
No, people hate formality - it takes too goddamn long. Hence, "body scanners" or "nude scanners" over "full-body terahertz wave scanners." And "nude scanners" just helps to differentiate from a walk-through metal detector, since that is also a "body scanner."
Re: (Score:3)
Dubya is just George Walker Bush. His father is George H.W. Bush. Also, the Republicans Love using Obama's full name (minus the President and the II) as part of their little "paint the guy as a Muslim" campaign of deceit. That said, I agree with your other points. BTW, the correct term is "porno scanner", not "nude scanner". The latter sounds too benign. Just FWIW. :-D
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, the correct term is "porno scanner", not "nude scanner". The latter sounds too benign. Just FWIW. :-D
If you are going for non- benign, try calling it a "pedo scanner", and use the term often and loudly when young kids are lining up to be scanned.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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]
Re: (Score:3)
People like formality when they can use it to wield power while evading responsibility. Its not Joe that's stonewalling, its the Engineering Change Control Committee (which happens to be controlled by Joe). Also people like formality when it strokes their own egos. For example, Lebron James always refers to The Game of Basketball during interviews, instead of just calling it basketball, as if we would be confused otherwise. Likewise with Joe, who feels pretty special being in control of the ECCC.
Re: (Score:3)
Most humans HATE formality, it's only scientists, autistics, and a couple of other weirdos that like it.
You don't know many scientists. Or only know a very specific breed of scientists (like maybe MD PhDs, they might be more formal). Or are confused on the definition of formality.
I'm also not sure about the autistics part either.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case I think they don't want to use the name "terahertz wave scanner" because it sounds too scary. People may realise they're being exposed to potentially ionising radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Terahertz wave scanners, while perhaps dry it's the correct technical term
Citation badly needed. AFAIK those scanners do not operate anywhere near Thz frequencies. More like 27 - 30 Ghz.
Obligatory (Score:2)
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:5, Insightful)
I dislike the scanners as much as most other normal people, and it seems the evidence suggests they are ineffective. But the constant complaining about being seen naked puts me off and I don't care to be associated people who are obviously either overacting the part or have legit mental issues related to their body.
You realize that nearly the same argument could be made about a cavity search. Just like we all have genitals which look similar, we all have intestines which look similar. No need to be shy about it when national security is at stake. So bend over and allow yourself to be fully searched. Anyone who objects to that clearly has serious mental issues and can be safely ignored.
Emotionally I object to being seen naked by anyone I am not about to have sex with. Intellectually/philosophically I greatly object to any society where a government agent is allowed to strip search innocent people who just want to exercise the basic human right to move about freely. Notice how I didn't use the term "constitutional" right. The constitution may or may not protect a citizen's freedom to move about freely, but basic human rights most certainly do. Personally I would rather die than allow a TSA agent to see me naked.
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:5, Insightful)
As a parent, I'm against both the naked body scans and intrusive pat downs. The former would add unneeded radiation exposure to my child and produce a photo of him naked. I could get in trouble for taking a picture of my kid in the bath and having it printed out at the local CVS (yes, parents have been accused of child porn for this and had their kids taken away), but the TSA could produce a naked photo of my kid "for National Security."
On the pat down front, I - as a parent - have instilled in my kids that there is a very limited group of people who can touch them "there." Mommy and Daddy (mostly for tub time) and their doctor. That's it. Now we need to add Random TSA Dude to the list? This is completely unacceptable to me.
I've been lucky so far in that my family hasn't been subjected to the Rapiscan (seriously, could they have chosen a worse name) or the intrusive pat downs. However, there have been plenty of stories of TSA agents who subject kids to horrific pat down experiences for minor "offenses" (like running to hug Grandma before her pat down was complete).
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:4, Insightful)
So you don't have body issues? Good for you.
Lots of people do have issues. Telling them to "get over it" isn't good enough in a civilized society.
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Try telling someone who was a victim of sexual assault to "just get over it" and subject themselves to an intrusive TSA pat down. I guarantee they won't be able to "just get over it" even if they tried.
Or try telling a kid (who has been told not to let strangers touch them inappropriately) that they should just let Random TSA Agent take them to the side, away from mommy and daddy, and run their (TSA Agent's) hands up and down their (kid's) body.
"Just get over it" isn't an appropriate response by any measure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"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
Re:Too lazy to do more research (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, can you imagine the massive amounts of cocks n titties the TSA people see? After about two weeks they've seen it all, just like the Mexican guy who mops the floor in the locker room. I guarantee that guy does not give a fuck about your dick.
Yeah, the TSA would never send a hot chick through the scanner multiple times ("just to be sure") or call their buddies over to take a look at her cans.
Oh, wait, yes they do [google.com].
I guess it's like porn. Nobody can make any money from porn because once people have seen a couple of porn videos they lose all interest in seeing more, right? Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:3)
Highly profitable. Failure also helps profitability, just ask Gates and Ballmer, it's called upgrades.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how much damage you could do with fireworks, but I'm thinking that razor blades are benign. If by spare blades you mean cartridges, then yeah you can remove the blade. But there's hardly anything to hold onto as it's a thin strip of steel a fraction of a cm wide. If you meant double edge blades, then that gives you a bit more to hold onto, but it seems like an unwieldy weapon to use. I'd probably be more scared of a terrorist with a well sharpened pencil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind the "there will always be risk", the risk is very low compared to other stuff that we take for granted and do nothing about. Poor allocation of health care resources apparently kills thousands of infants each year (if we had Canada's infant mortality rate, 8000 fewer deaths per year, and Canada's only middle of the pack among developed nations). Lack of exercise shortens expected lifespans by 2-5 years, depending on how you define "exercise". Careless driving is good for tens of thousands of deaths each year, including over 3000 pedestrians (i.e., people not in cars). It is likely, though not proven, that inadequate food regulation (the fact that trans-fats from partially hydrogenated oils are still considered "food" instead of "poison") and poorly chosen agricultural subsidies (does HFCS need to be so cheap? No, it does not.) cause tens of thousands of early deaths each year.
Re: (Score:3)
Never mind the "there will always be risk", the risk is very low compared to other stuff that we take for granted and do nothing about.
Yeah, in terms of terrorist attack risk, you could just consult this handy chart [boingboing.net].
Re: (Score:3)
From the chart:
Odds of being a terrorism victim in a flight: 1 in 10,408,947
Odds of being killed by lightning: 1 in 500,000
What we need to do is obvious. Let the War On Lightning begin!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Bruce Schneier argues that whatever the procedures, if we want to get professional security we should treat the job as a profession, and recruit, train, and pay accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce Schneier argues that whatever the procedures, if we want to get professional security we should treat the job as a profession, and recruit, train, and pay accordingly.
Perhaps you can explain to me why we want "professional" security? or any kind of security at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Disposables are OK, but the ones with the removable blades are not, with good reason. They are just a step down from boxcutters used on 9/11.
I don't think there is any "good reason" for this security theater.
Re: (Score:2)
The explosives residue scan is for organic explosives. Gunpowder and similar substances are not detected. But fertilizer is.