Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

JFK, LAX To Test Millimeter-Wave Scanners

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the actually-frauelein-we-no-longer-ask-for-papers dept.

Transportation 235

Narrative Fallacy writes "The Transportation Security Administration has announced that it's beginning pilot tests of millimeter wave scanning technology at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) that allow TSA personnel to see concealed weapons and other items that may be hidden beneath clothes. TSA Administrator Kip Hawley says that that the potentially revealing body scans (YouTube) would not be stored and that 90% of passengers subject to secondary screening opt for a millimeter wave scan over a pat-down. The agency added that security officers viewing the scans would do so remotely, where they will not be able to recognize passengers but will be able to trigger an alarm if needed. The agency also said that a blurring algorithm is applied to passengers' faces in scanned images as an additional privacy protection."

cancel ×

235 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just a Matter of Time... (5, Insightful)

FurtiveGlancer (1274746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140166)

before we see "best of anonymous airport scanner" porn sites pop up. On the bright side, the faces will already be blurred. From the I'd-know-that-birthmark-anywhere department.

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (4, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140202)

I was about to say something about the security guards being aroused the whole shift they work... But then i realized it will be at an US airport, where the traffic will have extra large volumes.

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (5, Funny)

PMBjornerud (947233) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140310)

But if you're a terrorist, hire an escort agency and enter the screening with a handful of nicely curved girls. You know where any board male security guards will be looking...

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140764)

What's a board male?

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (0, Troll)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141336)

Nice way to fuck up a perfectly good joke by not being able to spell "bored". The humor is lost when it takes a second to try and figure out WTF you meant.

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (1)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140424)

Or fat people are hired to hide guns in the skinfolds...

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140450)

You read my mind! We see those photos from amusement parks, with women's see-thru T-shirts, popping all over the net. It's only a matter of time 'til we see these scanner photos available too.

"See Jessica Alba's naked body (as captured by airport security guards)!"

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140830)

Yes, but if you haven't got anything to hide you have nothing to worry about.

(spoken in a squeaky high voice)

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140698)

"Faces will be blurred." Solution: Hide that **tiny** glass knife in a leather pouch under your tongue.
Of course, you could say, "You can't do much with a tiny glass knife." If it's as sharp as boxcutters? Or, even, a razor blade?

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140780)

Faces blurred? Perfect!

So what's to stop someone from hiding their weapon in their hair or mouth? Say a small razor?

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (5, Funny)

palewook (1101845) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140966)

how long before this device shows up as a Japanese Game Show.

One guy here needs a new sig (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141272)

There's one or two people here with the sig "oh look, my tax dollars at work coming to arrest me!"

Should now read "oh look, my tax dollars at work coming to ogle me!"

There's no limit to the liberty they'll take from you or the indignities they will subject to to in the name of security. But it isn't your security they fear, it's their cushy jobs that the terrorists threaten. And the domestic terrorists putting you through this rank bullshit have no remorse at all. In fact, they may possibly believe their own bullshit.

Someone else has that Heinlein quote about the four boxes, it is especcially germaine here, too.

Re:Just a Matter of Time... (1)

Edgester (105351) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141608)

News flash: screeners go blind from seeing people that no one wants to see naked!

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140170)

Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140172)

More incentive to get in shape I guess. I've got time though, I don't fly much.

kachhinjja@inbox.lv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140188)

hmm
this is not anything new

why? (5, Funny)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140190)

I mean, just how many millimetre waves are people going to be smuggling onto airplanes?

Is there a market in black market millimetre waves that I'm not aware of?

Indecent posing (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140192)

I was asked to do a scan at Heathrow, with no option for a patdown instead.

To do this I had to stand in a certain posture.

Imagine someone trying to push, with both hands, a wall coming at them from a slight angle above - or, someone doing a Hadouken at a telephone pole.

At the same time they should have their legs like someone doing a "Kungfu Dancing" imitation, with the condition that they have just crapped themself so making sure they keep those cheeks extra spread.

Image from front and back.

Re:Indecent posing (4, Funny)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140676)



The best part was that they weren't even scanning you. They pull this joke on all the tourists with American accents... ;-)

Re:Indecent posing (3, Informative)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140688)

I had this at LHR back in November (coincidentally I was flying to JFK). The option was to stay in line, or be fast tracked to the front, via scanning.
They described the process as an 'X-ray' which I would have questioned but as I was quite keen to be progressed I simply said "okay".
The stances certainly weren't easy, especially as you have to remain still, they had 3 different positions as I remember it.

Re:Indecent posing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141048)

> I was asked to do a scan at Heathrow, with no option for a patdown instead.

Err, it's not a menu.. If you refuse the scan, they will offer you a patdown.

Re:Indecent posing (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141484)

If I fly, can I just fly naked? I'd rather the fucking perverts in our cowardly governments look than touch.

Would you be OK with getting a pat-down or a scan to buy something at the store? Then why is everybody OK with this crap at an airport?

"please take off your clothes" (4, Informative)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140194)

Given that both this airports insist on you taking laptops out of your bag (how bad a scanner is it?) and shoes off and on my last notable trip through JFK I had to remove all electronic items (2 ipods, PSP, 2 mobile phones, 2 laptops, safe token) an put them through in a series of trays I can just imagine how this will actually work.

They'll ask you to take your clothes off, put the clothes through the scanner to find anything "invisible" and then send them down a ramp at high speed getting them all mixed up with other people's clothes.

My current irritation in US airports is the "boarding card" check AFTER the body scanner. So if (like me) you normally put your ticket in your jacket pocket (which of course has to be scanned separately) then you get scolded even though your boarding pass had to be checked to get you into the security queue in the first place. All this check does is slow everyone down for another 10 seconds per person for absolutely ZERO benefit (they don't check that you are the person on the card, just that you have the boarding card).

Re:"please take off your clothes" (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140276)

It's actually to stop idiots from coming back to the screening area looking for their boarding card.

One bunch of idiots making rules for another bunch of idiots.

Boarding pass check (4, Informative)

supersat (639745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140516)

The boarding pass check is to see if you should be directed to secondary screening. Yes, it's dumb that they put the secondary screening indicator (the "SSSS" of doom) on your boarding pass, but that's how it works.

Re:Boarding pass check (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140592)

I get it all the time, only thing worse than a "white male traveling alone" is a "man of eastern appearance".

Re:Boarding pass check (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140842)

Odd, as a "white male travelling alone", I have never been singled out for secondary screening on my many trips. Not even that time when the security guy at check-in (they had a separate guy asking a few questions) asked me if I travelled alone, and I replied "No but my friend is on another flight today since he got a freebie ticket, not sure which flight. Where am I staying in the US? No idea, its in New York and my friend has the address". I breezed through security as usual.

The only time I got secondary screening was when I returned from NY with a friend, and we checked in really early (this was after AA cancelled all its flights and they told us to expect 4 hour long queues at check-in the next day. Naturally the airport was deserted when we showed up early). I suppose they found that suspicious. I must say the secondary screening was nothing bad, a quick pat down, a few questions and swabs from my clothing. The accepted my explanation about the gunpowder trace on my jacket ("I wear this to the range") without further queries.

Re:Boarding pass check (2, Funny)

dosun88888 (265953) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141016)

How much does the TSA pay its shills these days?

Re:"please take off your clothes" (2, Interesting)

gatzke (2977) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141210)


Humans make mistakes. Maybe the first human overlooked something on your ticket, so the second hopefully will catch it...

Think of it scientifically. If the humans are 99% effective at catching whatever they catch when looking at your boarding pass, one layer would miss 1 out of 100 evildoers. Two layers makes that number 1 in 10,000. Of course, the effectiveness of one layer is still debatable...

I would like to see personal interviews more commonplace, like how they do with the Israeli airlines. Just a few questions for each person, hoping to pick up cues. "where are you going?" "what are you doing there?" kind of questions. Of course, that could be seen as stereotyping people...

x-ray vision glassss (1)

manojar (875389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140208)

what happened to the exciting x-ray glasses technology? when i was a kid i badly wanted one of those advertised on back of richie rich and archies comics... :-(

Re:x-ray vision glassss (1)

ankleteeth (646346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140230)

I would say this is the first prototype to them. Only a matter of time before they can incorporate this technology into someones eyewear.

It may not stop terrorists but... (5, Funny)

pagaboy (1029878) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140214)

it'll certainly catch any unauthorised commandos.

bullshit (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140238)

TSA Administrator Kip Hawley says that that the potentially revealing body scans (YouTube) would not be stored and that 90% of passengers subject to secondary screening opt for a millimeter wave scan over a pat-down.


How many of those people actually were aware of the pat-down option? I bet it was not 100%. Also, given the fact that even Medical information cannot be reliably kept confidential in most cases, I sincerely doubt this data will. Unless there are strong prison sentences for any employee convicted of disseminating this information, I am not impressed with their statements of security, confidentiality, or purported privacy.
 
 

The agency added that security officers viewing the scans would do so remotely, where they will not be able to recognize passengers but will be able to trigger an alarm if needed. The agency also said that a blurring algorithm is applied to passengers' faces in scanned images as an additional privacy protection."


Uh huh. I feel so much better that the pervert checking out my junk is out of sight. Yeah, much better. Ohhh, but I do agree that the blurred faces give additional illusions of privacy. I am certain that all the women feel better that we men aren't looking at their faces.

Re:bullshit (4, Insightful)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140268)

No offense dude, but most people probably dont want to be checking our your "junk".

Really, what is the paranoia of the human body? Who gives a shit if someone see's my penis, if its a guy they have one of similar design in their pants too...

puritian influences (3, Interesting)

hansoloaf (668609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140338)

I see the Puritan influences is still pervasive and strong in this country regarding our bodies.

Re:puritian influences (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140824)

Personally, I'm going to make an extra-special effort to be sporting a big stiffy the next time I'm subjected to this search.

Re:puritian influences (4, Insightful)

madboson (649658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141454)

Has nothing to do with Puritan influences. This is extending the invasion of privacy to a very private level. So now, to travel any where I have to do the equivalent of dragging my clothes off for some anonymous screener. Thank you, no.

Re:bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140354)

Who gives a shit if someone see's my penis

It can cause an uncontrollable laugh outbreak and thus disturb the operation of security control.

Re:bullshit (4, Interesting)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140428)

I don't understand the paranoia. This is the GOVERNMENT we are talking about. We trust them with our future retirement savings (SS); we trust them with our healthcare (medicare and coming soon: universal gov't hospitals); we trust them with feeding and housing us (food stamps; welfare; et cetera); and educating us (gov't schools).

Surely we can trust the government in erasing naked photos of our bodies.

Right?

Hello?

Hmmmm. Seems absurd we trust them with taking care of us (like children) in all other facets of life; why not this one too?

Re:bullshit (2, Insightful)

djones101 (1021277) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140726)

Considering I, like most people...

A) Don't collect Social Security, and have made alternative plans for retirement since SS will be gone by the time I'm 67 (my full-SS retirement age, a whole 42 years from now).

B) Don't utilize government healthcare. Medicare is a farse that will not last until I'm old and gray.

C) I purchased my own house with money I collected working a job, something a growing number of people seem unwilling to do. I also purchase my food with the same money.

D) I went to a private elementary and middle school, then sat bored through 3 years of high school before finally receiving something resembling new material. I went to a local community college for college (where I now work), and will have my BS from a private university early next month.

No, I will NOT trust the government. Trust, like respect, is EARNED, not given. The government, in its current form, has done nothing to earn my trust in any way. In fact, Bush and his cronies have done everything in their power to undermine any trust I may have had prior to the start of his dictat...errr...Presidency.

The TSA has proven, time and again, its incompetence and inability to utilize oversight on its employees and practices. I see no reason to trust them that privacy will be maintained in this instance either.

That being said, I'd still rather be screened visually then have some gay porn star feeling me up in an open glass tube. That may work for some people, but I'm not that kind of a person.

Re:bullshit (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140814)

I don't understand the paranoia. This is the GOVERNMENT we are talking about. We trust them with our future retirement savings (SS); we trust them with our healthcare (medicare and coming soon: universal gov't hospitals); we trust them with feeding and housing us (food stamps; welfare; et cetera); and educating us (gov't schools).

We don't trust them ... we've entrusted them because we have no other choice.

When it comes right down to it, we don't trust them any more than they trust us.

Cheers

Sorry chief, nice try (1)

hassanchop (1261914) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140878)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrust [merriam-webster.com]

entrust

1: to confer a trust on; especially : to deliver something in trust to


Sorry fella, but your attempt at splitting hairs in order to avoid admitting the truth fails. You can't "entrust" someone with someone without trusting them, so when you said

"We don't trust them ... we've entrusted them because we have no other choice"

You were wrong.

Nice try though, even though it was obviously wrong. And you do have another choice, the fact that you fail to even recognize it exists if far more worrisome than your failure to understand the words you're using.

Re:bullshit (1)

Lafeek (1213360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140968)

Because the government is run by people. Ordinary people.

Re:bullshit (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140532)

First of all, I definitely understand your point. But let me raise a counter-example for the sake of the discussion.

My neighbor has a a beautiful wife with the same similar design as my wife.. or even my mother. Does that mean that she (or her husband for that matter!) would feel comfortable showing her details to others? (nudists are considered an exception here).

Or what about the idea of your wonderful teenage daughter being selected for a scan time after time again?!? Would you 'give a shit' in that case?

It's not even directly a Puritan thing I guess.. more just a sense of 'personal privacy' that you just don't want to give away easily.

Adding to that: there's a difference between taking of your clothes for ones general practitioner, who is under OATH to keep things secret, and getting naked for some random security dude.

The later group is faarrr more like to e.g. video tape things and put it on YouTube. They did not have to study for many, many years for a job.

Heck, if they screw up, they can just continue elsewhere. If a GP messes up, he can basically forget ever doing that work again.

Re:bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140598)

That's easy for you to say since you probably don't have a hidden penis that retracts into your fatty abdomen pad.

Exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140628)

So I'll be standing buck naked in line, saving them the trouble of raying me.

Re:bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140866)

No offense dude, but most people probably dont want to be checking our your "junk".
mmmm ... post a picture and let us decide ;-)

Re:bullshit (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140378)

Looking vs touching. I'd go with the looking personally.

They see tons of people every day. Its nothing special to them.

Re:bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140476)

Depends if it's a cute lass doing the touching ;)

Re:bullshit (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140538)

I like the way it's automatically assumed that I would rather have my genitalial viewed or patted down by the male homosexual rather than the female lesbian.

Re:bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140716)

Uh huh. I feel so much better that the pervert checking out my junk is out of sight. Yeah, much better. Ohhh, but I do agree that the blurred faces give additional illusions of privacy. I am certain that all the women feel better that we men aren't looking at their faces.

Good grief, you MUST be American... Or Muslim...

Option to opt-out (1)

kidsizedcoffin (1197209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140242)

As long as it is an option the passenger has, to say no, and go with a standard pat down, then I don't see it being a huge issue. That said, if we start seeing the "non-stored" images popping up online, then we have a problem.

Re:Option to opt-out (5, Insightful)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140332)

Yes - but is also needs to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to passengers that they have the option to opt out too! I had this experience in London Heathrow - they didn't give me a choice, until I asked if I must do it... after a few minutes of avoiding the question, they sheepishly admitted that I didn't have to.

People are often afraid of challenging any sort of authority these days - for fear of reprisal. That's unacceptable. You shouldn't be afraid to ask questions, and shouldn't be labeled a terrorist for doing so either!

MadCow.

Re:Option to opt-out (2, Funny)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140390)

He/She is a terrorist. Burn her/him!

Re:Option to opt-out (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140394)

Making a fuss isnt worth it.

Its not about asking questions. Its about if its actually worth it.
Your going to get searched anyway. Best to get it over and done with quickly.

Re:Option to opt-out (1, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140438)

You're going to die anyway. Might as well just march into the gas chambers peaceably. Don't question the government. It is there "to serve man".

Re:Option to opt-out (1, Insightful)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140714)

Might as well just march into the gas chambers peaceably.
Are you seriously going to sit there and say that getting scanned by airport security is the equivalent of Nazi gas chambers? Do you even realize the utter absurdity you've just promulgated? Were you attempting a joke?

Re:Option to opt-out (1)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140468)

So, 15 years down the line as technology progresses... you'd rather submit to an anal probe which can scan your brainwaves in order to determine if you're a terrorist or not, than to sit through a 30-minute interrogation?

The easy path is one that leads to losing all your rights. If nobody fights for them, or thinks it's worth fighting for (despite personal inconvenience), then it's game over.

MadCow.

Re:Option to opt-out (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140500)

There are of course limits but I dont see the problem with a body scan vs a pat down.

Re:Option to opt-out (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140648)

Man, I don't even let *police* pat me down. These chumps get to set arbitrary rules and because all you sheep just do what you're told, I have to put up with it, otherwise I'll be the "trouble maker" and won't be allowed to fly.

Re:Option to opt-out (1)

mofag (709856) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140834)

and here's me thinking that I have to put up with it because of sheep like you

Re:Option to opt-out (3, Insightful)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140788)

The easy path is one that leads to losing all your rights.
Point out to me precisely where you derive this "right" to getting on an airplane without being searched? Go on, show me. I'm sure you know exactly what paragraph and clause in the Constitution says you have the right to board an airplane without having to comply with security regulations. You have to know because you're so damned sure you've got this "right."

Of course, you have no such right because the law makes no provision for one. If you do not wish to submit to being scanned/searched/whatever, you can take a bus, a cab, or your own personal transportation. No one is restricting your ability to get from point A to point B, there are no traffic control points with Gestapo'd brownshirts saying "papers please." You're making a mountain out of a molehill because it suits your agenda. The bare facts are this: if you wish to travel via air, you are traveling in a collective manner, and the safety of everyone on board -- include your thin-skinned self -- outweighs your individual right to be a paranoid, the-government-is-out-to-get-me-all-the-time passenger. If the above security measures offend you so much, put your moral fortitude where your mouth is and don't travel by air. Or, if you must, charter your own flight and skip security altogether. Yes, it's expensive, or time consuming, or annoying depending upon what alternate mode of travel you chose, but if you're so terrified of losing your "right to privacy," it's a small price to pay...right?

I don't trust the government any further than I can throw it, but I don't trust you either. That's why I'm happy as hell people are screened before they get on a plane with me, and I wish like hell they'd scan more of them and more thoroughly.

Re:Option to opt-out (5, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141760)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

Airports were the first place where it didn't apply. Now you can be frisked before entering a night club, a political rally, or hell, even your local high school.

The way the US has let the Fourth Amendment slip over the years is a disgrace.

Re:Option to opt-out (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140738)

Making a fuss isn't worth it.
Hmm... yes, it's not worth it at the security check-in. However, it damn well is worth making a fuss. Air travel has become an horrific nightmare in the past 7 years. We are all treated like potential terrorists, our laptops etc are randomly taken away from us, often never to be returned. We are treated to indignities that even cattle do not face.

Everyone needs to be making MUCH more fuss. This has got to stop. Even if you believe in the terrorists under the bed nonsense, you have to understand that by allowing security checks etc like this then the terrorists have won without lifting a single finger.

It's probably already too late to reverse most of the harm done by the Bush and Blair/Brown regimes, however that doesn't mean that every thinking person should not be trying to do just that. It's got to stop.

Re:Option to opt-out (3, Interesting)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141000)

Agree to that. But for non-puritans the worst part already happened.

I -do- mind having my nude photo taken in order to be allowed on a plane.

I mind a lot -MORE- though having to deliver a metric shitload (make that 2.356 imperial shitloads) of personal data in order to be allowed to fly.

Realistically, I look like an average adult. If someone gets off on blurry outlines of average adults, it's not as if such are in short supply anyway, and frankly I kinda doubt it. And I doubt these pictures are even stored at all, past the few seconds the guards spend inspecting them.

On the other hand, to even be allowed to fly into USA, your freedom-loving government insist that my plane-company provide them with a LONG list of personal data, to be stored indefinitely;

My name, sex and age. When I bougth the ticket. If it's a return-ticket or not. How I paid for the ticket. If I bought it directly, or trough a travel-agency. With whom I'm traveling. Age, name and sex of everyone I'm traveling with. What class I'm flying. My complete travel-itinerary for this trip. And so on.

I consider this a -much- worse invasion of privacy than some blurry nudes. And infact I refuse to comply. Which mean that I refuse to visit the USA at all presently (and have since 2001).

A pity. There's friends over there I'd like to see more often, and there's places I'd like to see and experience. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back, you'll regain some measure of privacy, if not, oh well, it's not as if there's a lack of other interesting places to go and things to do.

I liked the way planes worked on the tiny airport near where I grew up. A lot like buses do today. You wait until the plane lands. Stewardess comes out and opens the luggage-hatch. You yourself toss your luggage in and enter the plane. Stewardess comes around and checks that everyone has a ticket. Your name ain't on the ticket and at no point are you even asked who you are. Closes the doors, and off you go. You could drive into the parking-lot and see the plane land -- and make it no problem. Back then. Oh well. Guess I'm getting old.

Re:Option to opt-out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140544)

That's not true! In London there is screen telling you that if you refuse to go though the "naked" security check, you will be given a full hand search (the extent of the body search is however not defined ;-) )

Re:Option to opt-out (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140356)

Great, you can choose between photographed naked or you can be groped.

I guess so long as they are polite about it.

(Pardon me, would you like this inserted orally or rectally? No I'm very sorry, reglations prohibit me from divulging what choice the last passenger made.)

Re:Option to opt-out (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140590)

or buy metallic paint and sell your body for the advertising space, an alt.com ad should fit on my left butt cheek!

In use at London Heathrow, but... (5, Interesting)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140288)

I had this happen at London Heathrow. I was selected for secondary scanning, and directed to the mm-wave device. The operator was sitting in a booth right beside the machine, but only he could see the screen.

The thing that really annoyed me is that I wasn't given a choice - simply told to go through this device. There was no explanation of what it was, or what it would do, only that "the amount of radiation is about the same as flying for an additional 5 minutes at altitude in a plane". However, when I asked the simple question "do I have to?", they sheepishly admitted that I did not. I signed a form saying that I didn't accept it, and they walked me to the front of the line for normal security!

So, by saying "no", I actually saved about 20 minutes in line.

My advice - REFUSE to participate in invasive scans like this. If people accept these new intrusions like sheep, it'll just keep getting worse.

MadCow.

Re:In use at London Heathrow, but... (2, Interesting)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140380)

the amount of radiation is about the same as flying for an additional 5 minutes at altitude in a plane
That's 5 minutes too long in my opinion.

Although it hasn't happened yet, I'm personally waiting for the next news post.. "New scanner shown to cause various cancers, millions of people already scanned".

Re:In use at London Heathrow, but... (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140746)

Not just cancers, lets go all the way to genetic mutations.

Where is the information on studies for this technology relating to Alzheimers, diabetes, melanoma, and well... just about any common diseases. I haven't seen it. All I've seen is radiation dosages for healthy humans.

Sure, some stuff won't kill you and is voluntary such as cellular phones. This is not voluntary. Just because it won't kill you, or cause you to mutate inside the airport does NOT mean that it does no harm. There are no long term studies of exposure to this radiation for normal folk, never mind those with medical problems already. I don't think it's actually FDA approved.

Re:In use at London Heathrow, but... (1, Redundant)

Wavebreak (1256876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140856)

Repeat after me: radiation at low levels is not dangerous. You get far higher levels than anything caused by humans simply from natural background radiation, even considering medical x-rays (which give you a dose far beyond these things). It's everywhere, and it doesn't hurt you. In fact, the current thinking is that low levels of radiation can in fact make you healthier (see hormesis [wikipedia.org] ).

Re:In use at London Heathrow, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140796)

Please take a moment to learn the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

Re:In use at London Heathrow, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140396)

I got picked out of the line at Stansted for one of these scans. They did quite clearly offer the choice of a pat-down instead of mm-wave scan and even offered to show me the images it took. Unfortunately, they only showed me the images take of my back so I have no idea how detailed the front would be :). The fun part is that I was wearing metal Odin's spear (about 1.5" long) around my neck, which either they missed or just didn't care about.

Thus, advice to terrorist: wear your weapons as jewelry.

Re:In use at London Heathrow, but... (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140710)

I signed a form saying that I didn't accept it, and they walked me to the front of the line for normal security!


Why did you have to sign a form? Was it to state that you agree you weren't being sexually harassed by being pat down, and that it was your choice? That seems really weird, but I can't think of another reason you'd have to sign anything.

Think of the children... (2, Insightful)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140372)

Remotely? I bet the security office watching the screen at remote place...is operating by themselves? How easy could he be holding a cellphone and recording all this?

Tell me next time when there is kiddie porn leaked from the video feed of scanner like this.

Re:Think of the children... (1)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140414)

Actually I think you bring up an interesting point. Considering that the TSA has kept young children from their parents on the grounds of secondary searches, much to the distress of the children and parents I wonder what will keep some sick fuck from wanting to scan kids and get his jollies off from it. I know a guy that works for TSA and by his own admission as long as you have a pulse and can read at a third grade level you can work for the TSA, so I would imagine that the quality of people there is somewhat low. Personally I don't fly anymore unless it's for business and only then if I can't get out of it. I especially don't fly with my family, it's cheaper to drive and I don't have to put up with asshats that have a little authority. Trust us citizen! We have your best interests in mind!

Re:Think of the children... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140642)

Tell me next time when there is kiddie porn leaked from the video feed of scanner like this.
Pedos are everywhere! Blurry body scans are kiddie porn! Western society (and hence slashdot) has become obsessed with the pedo scare. Give it a rest.

Re:Think of the children... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23141630)

Tell me next time when there is kiddie porn leaked from the video feed of scanner like this.

      I don't imagine these machines forcing children into explicit sexual acts.

      Oh wait, for you naked = porn? Damn, what about all those diaper commercials that show babies bottoms, then. Must be kiddie porn too huh? Idiot. It's people like you that leave dangerous people on the street because the jails are full of "criminals".

I'm looking for blurs... (2, Insightful)

Admiral Justin (628358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140400)

I'm sure the rat-things will disarm me promptly.

Good thing I remember /. articles about sintered armorgel being produced, or I'd be really bad off.

so they'll be checking kids too? (5, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140444)

Airport security -- first job choice for pedophiles now. The government spends half its energy trying to catch people looking at kids in their underwear, and then the other half making sure some people can get a good clear view.

Re:so they'll be checking kids too? (2, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140488)

Which airport is that? I am yet to see a child in underwear at any airport.

Re:so they'll be checking kids too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140774)

I think you've discovered the way to prevent these from catching on. A think-of-the-children bill banning these machines should easily pass. That, or they'll ban men from being screeners.

My employer forces me to get naked.. (5, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140458)

just follow my logic here. I only fly because my company makes me. When I go to the airport I have to put up with all this security bullshit and now they've put in magic scanners (it's magic to me, as it is to most everyone) and the security people get to see me naked. So basically, if I want to get paid, my company is demanding that I get naked. Now, I don't know about you, but I didn't sign up for that. I'm not exactly *against* the idea of getting naked for money, but I think I should be getting paid a lot more than I am now if that's the deal.

Re:My employer forces me to get naked.. (1)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140576)

It does sound like time to renegotiate your contract!

An alarm is still a leaky channel (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140498)

So they'll give /two/ alarms instead of one, when the blond 17 year old with the giant but perky tits walks by.

Sounds expensive (2, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140502)

All else aside, how much do these things cost? Who's paying?

The homeland security folks have had a blank cheque to pay for whatever cool toys they want for far too long.

Air travel is expensive enough as it is, and considering just how rarely I do it, the taxpayer subsidies are sickening as well.

Whats the point? (1)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140518)

if they find some thing then they go for a strip search anyway, don't they ? a pat down takes 10 seconds a scan takes 5 minutes.

That's great and all, but... (1)

Hanners1979 (959741) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140550)

The agency also said that a blurring algorithm is applied to passengers' faces

It isn't my face that I'm worried about them seeing...

Can I get a printout of my scan when I leave? (1)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140570)

You know when you go to a theme park, and there's some bozo photographer at the entrance asking to take your photograph, and then you can buy a print of that photograph as you leave? And even though it's a lousy shot, they want $20 for it? It's like that.

Or better yet, they'll sell anonymized scans of other people.

What does a scanner see? I mean, really see? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140652)

darkly for sure

Obvious flaw in system (4, Interesting)

benwiggy (1262536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140700)

If the system has an algorithm to blur the details of faces, then obviously, you just need to hide your terrorism kit in your face.

Alarm bells (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140728)

The agency added that security officers viewing the scans would do so remotely, where they will not be able to recognize passengers but will be able to trigger an alarm if needed.

Yeah, you can just imagine the sort of alarms they'll be triggering to get all the boys running for a look..

"Big Bazongas" Alert
"Penis shaped like an amusing vegetable" alert
Ben Wa Balls Alarm

and so on...

No problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140740)

The agency also said that a blurring algorithm is applied to passengers' faces in scanned images as an additional privacy protection.


I'll keep all my illegal items in my hat then!

Metal implants still require a pat down (2, Insightful)

pjohnson (13070) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140742)

So even if grandma has a new hip and goes through the new scanner she's still getting a pat down. I also beleive this is the case for any alarm form the new scanner

Personally I have to question then how is this an improvement oveer the current magnetometers from a user perspective.

Also I do not for a minute buy the government's assertion this is safe. Plain and simple there isn't enough long term data for them to make that claim.

Medical privacy (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23140844)

I'm a transsexual, and this would totally out me (people generally can't tell). As if I need people to find more excuses to give me shit.

who watches the watchers? (4, Insightful)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 6 years ago | (#23140886)

I submit that if a TSA screener should be entitled to such a scan, that I should be entitled to see them do the same. Unfortunately, given the appearance and physical fitness of your average screener, I think I'm getting the short end of the stick even in that case.

In all seriousness, though, these sorts of violations by our governments upon the governed is the intent of terrorism. Civilians are the indirect target. By making them afraid, the government is pressured or motivated to enact increasingly restrictive laws and methods of enforcement to assuage that fear and protect the populace. The terrorists know that full protection is impossible, so they continue until the loss of freedom becomes so intolerable that the people overthrow the government. The politicians and so-called elected officials know this, but play into their hands anyway--in the short term, the power grab is irresistible.

The entire focus on security (and technology to improve such security) is wrongheaded, and is a convenient diversion from the real issue, which is why people become terrorists in the first place. People don't explode themselves for no reason whatsoever. No amount of technology, legislation, or vigilance will ever address the root cause that incites an individual to such fervor that they are willing to DIE to achieve their aims.

But again, the politicians know this--so one must call into question their own motivation for pushing these measures on the public. When I have the ability to subject each and every last one of our elected officials, corporate officers, and whomever is telling me I'm supposed to be OK with being scanned and exposed in such a humiliating fashion, to the exact same treatment, then and only then would I consider accepting such a practice. When I can see Dick Cheney's ugly-ass flaps of man-tits hanging over his oversized belly obscuring his undersized privates (mind you, not that I would ever risk the subsequent psychological scarring), I might reconsider. And if even one scan ever gets leaked or misused in any way, I'd like to see the scans of each and every one of those people involved in promoting this technology released all over the internet for everyone to laugh at as punishment. Otherwise, their promises and reassurances mean nothing.

It is not a question of trust, freedom, modesty, or security. It is a question of accountability; because without that, everything else is meaningless. To the extent that those that watch us do not desire to be watched by us is the precise extent to which we are not a free and just society.

Re:who watches the watchers? (1)

hiruhl (1171697) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141494)

The entire focus on security (and technology to improve such security) is wrongheaded, and is a convenient diversion from the real issue, which is why people become terrorists in the first place. People don't explode themselves for no reason whatsoever.

Right-o. We should invest in technology which will remove all those blasted virgins from heaven.

More give away to pet contractors (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141260)

Passenger Safety? try more FAA inspectors, and more air traffic controllers.

This looks like a machine that is being sold to the government and 10 or 20 times what it should cost with the main purpose of funneling tax money to some political donor.

This whole terrorist thing is way overblown , and the real danger in flying is the cheap airlines getting away with lax maintenance because the money that should be going to FAA inspectors is going to silly stuff like this.

Cheers
 

Of COURSE they will be stored. (2, Insightful)

clintp (5169) | more than 6 years ago | (#23141508)

Hawley says that that the potentially revealing body scans (YouTube) would not be stored

The scans have to be stored for criminal prosecution and accident/incident investigation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>