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!

Full Body Scanners Installed In 10 US Airports

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the too-cheap-to-hire-superman dept.

Privacy 454

Lapzilla brings word that airports around the US are beginning to use a new type of body-scanning machine which records pictures of travelers underneath their clothing. The process takes roughly 30 seconds, and the person viewing the pictures is located in a separate room. We've discussed similar scanners in the past. From USAToday: "[Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU technology project] said passengers would be alarmed if they saw the image of their body. 'It all seems very clinical and non-threatening -- you go through this portal and don't have any idea what's at the other end,' he said. Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth. Magazine-sized signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them."

cancel ×

454 comments

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

Ewwww... (2)

Plazmid (1132467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690803)

Gross.

Re:Ewwww... (2, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690849)

So..what happens if you refuse to do the scanner....and refuse to show ID to avoid being on any lists, but, are perfectly willing for a physical search?

Re:Ewwww... (3, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690871)

They physically search you. The scanner isn't mandatory; it's just faster than a physical search and doesn't require you to remove much, if any, clothing.

Re:Ewwww... (4, Funny)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690873)

Since I'm pretty sure you can't board the plane without showing ID at some point, what will probably happen is you won't fly anywhere that day.

Unless you look foreign. Then you'll fly down south for a nice vacation somewhere sunny. Like Cuba.

Re:Ewwww... (5, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690911)

You can board a plane without ID. However, you have to go through more intensive security measures, and you go into a separate line for that.

At some very busy airports, this has been occasionally used by seasoned travelers to get through security more quickly. It's a gamble as it depends on how busy the wand screeners are, but sometimes it works.

Re:Ewwww... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691101)

hmmm, Martin guy here works for the TSS? (sorry, TSA, but Nazi acronyms always come to my mind when I remember the USA)
Explicitly, what will happen if you reject to go to the searching booth and doesn't show an ID is this:
The TSA storm-troopers will show up with machine guns (like they do in the MIA), and, if they don't shoot you, they will take you to an interrogatory room where you going to pass through a strip and a cavity search, where they will curse you, and make bad jokes about you. So, there are no rights for American citizens in the USA anymore. Stop to live on denial and recognize that our country was destroyed, and today it is only a tyranny, with a broken beyond repair economy and owned by China (which owns 7 trillion of our 9 trillion debt).
That is why I left the USA and won't ever come back. I am even looking for a way to forfeit my US Citizenship as soon I am granted permanent residence on this country I am in now.
All sane Americans must follow my steps: just leave the USA and never come back...

Re:Ewwww... (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691013)

In 2006 I was taking a business trip to Orlando for a training seminar. It's about 1.5 hours before take off and I'm getting ready to go through the security. I take out my boarding pass as well as my license and I realize that my license is not in my wallet. I had already checked my luggage, without showing ID mind you, and I'm starting to panic that I won't get through security. As ask the screener if there is any chance I can even board the plane without the license thinking that I might be able to get the DMV to reprint a license and my wife FedEx to me on my trip. The screener said if the airline approves it that I could. The airline did approve it without even batting an eyelash as I was already checked in. Not sure what the logic in that was. The screener did say though that I could have problems with my connections as well as Orlando's airport likely wouldn't be as accommodating on the way back.

Thankfully my wife was able to find and get me my license in time as renting a car was definitely not going to happen without a wallet.

Re:Ewwww... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691139)

I've been on many many flights, even international, and never had to have my license. Passport was the only ID needed. Not sure what small town places you were going through.

Re:Ewwww... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691177)

But you still had government-issued ID, which makes your observation pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Re:Ewwww... (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691219)

ahhhh, you got the flash of that scene in Total Recall too? Not the one with the gun in the scanner but the crazy exploding head lady. Only it's not the lady's head that explodes but the viewer's eyes.

How much does TSA pay for hazardous duty? I doubt it's enough.

Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties (5, Funny)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690807)

Okay, first thing... the woman in the scanner looks like she's trying to keep a hula hoop in motion.

Second thing:

The scanners do a good job seeing under clothing but cannot see through plastic or rubber materials that resemble skin, said Peter Siegel, a senior scientist at the California Institute of Technology. "You probably could find very common materials that you could wrap around you that would effectively obscure things," Siegel said.


Wonder if it would be legal to sell a line of rubberized scan-proof lingerie?

"Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties: The TSA won't see your va-jay-jay today"
"Bodacious Ta's Rubber Bras: If the TSA wants to see your nipples, make 'em buy you dinner first."
"Mr. Happy's Super Sleeves: Take a 'tripod' through the TSA scanner."

- Greg

Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties (2, Funny)

Plazmid (1132467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690841)

Will covering my self with Aluminium foil work? What about sewing in copper wire into my clothing? Or how about a spazy self-ironig suit, that has titanium thread woven into it?(marketed for travellers)

Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690957)

Christ, I love Greek! Women just don't seem to understand that a man can find just as much pleasure in the warm confines of a well- muscled ass as they can in the satin embrace of a well-wetted cunt. Maybe we men have conditioned them too well to ignoring one hole for the other: nonetheless, every man I've talked to about it loves Greek and every woman who I've talked to about it has been less than enthusiastic. So imagine my surprise last weekend when geekgirlandrea treated me to the joys of anal sex in what must be the first time in five or six years.

The night started our strangely. geekgirlandrea had just finished re- arranging her large library and was exhausted. As suits my biological clock, I was just coming awake at 10 PM when she was turning in. She invited me to bed and I politely declined: I was horny as usual and told her I'd keep her awake. After a couple of more requests from her, I stripped and crawled in beside her. geekgirlandrea loves to snuggle and wasted no time in curling her small body up next to mine. I turned and kissed her. She was oddly responsive for her tired state, and teased me with a hint of tongue in her kisses. I reached down to feel her muff and found it just beginning to rev as her right hand slipped down her belly to her clit.

I took up what has become my customary position between her legs - kneeling and using my cock as a sex toy to tickle her lower labia and the entrance to her cunt. But this time I let my aim wander lower to the wonderful curve where ass, crotch, and leg meet. I rubbed my cock against this soft crescent and expanded the stroke to brush against the entrance to her ass. I noticed that every time that my prick touched her rosebud, her strokes on her clit quickened. It wasn't long before I was pressing the tip of my cock against her asshole.

Surprise! My cock slipped easily into her ass until the entire head was buried inside, and just as I was about to pull out and apoligize, she handed me a bottle of sex lubricant and said "What the fuck? Why not?". I pulled back and poured the lubricant on my hard cock and noticed her pussy was swollen and very wet. I worked my cock back into its previous nest. It was so easy. I could feel her ass muscles relaxing and opening for me. I eased ever so slowly deeper. Such heaven! Like a warm, wet hand gripping all around my prick - so much tighter than pussy, and delightful in an entirely different way. I could feel her hips grind against me as I worked the last of my seven-plus inches into her back door. Realizing where I was and how long it had been since I'd known this pleasure, I had to fight to pull the reigns in on my orgasm.

It seemed like forever - my slow rocking pulling my cock almost full-length out of her ass before easing it back in until my balls rested against her firm buns. Her right hand furiously massaged her clit and her left hand played at the entrance of her cunt, pressing on the full length of her labia. And all the while my cock was enveloped in a firm net of gripping muscles that wrestled to bring the cum from me. "It's so weird," she said as she searched for the grip on her own orgasm. Suddenly, it was upon her. I felt her ass open up like a mouth that was just to blow up a ballon. "Are you close?" she hissed. "No," I grunted. She was close, tho'. Too close to stop. I felt her stiffen and lurch under me. "Uuhhhh! Come on you bastard! Fill my ass!" she yelled as she dug her nails into my back. Amazing what a little dirty talk will do - from that special nowhere where good men hide their orgasms until their lovers are ready, my load bolted from my crotch to my brain and back to my flushed balls. I gripped the pillow with my teeth and jerked my neck back and forth and tried not to deafen geekgirlandrea when my cum blasted out of my cock like water from a firehose. The rush of jism racing up my tube seemed to last for stroke after stroke until sweaty geekgirlandrea gasped, grunted, and pushed me from on top of her. Since I have a little anal experience myself, I knew the sudden discomfort of having something in your ass after you've orgasmed. I considerately slipped out of her despite not having finished my own orgasm to my complete satisfaction.

I kissed her and thanked her for her special gift, but she pushed me away. "Go wash off and fuck my pussy," she said " I feel like something's undone." So after a quick and thorough shower, I returned to the futon where her dripping, swollen twat waited for my not-quite-recovered cock.

And that's another story...

Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691045)

The photo made me recall this "Intro to psychology" course I took back when...

Is it just me or does TFA photo [usatoday.net] look like a Skinner box [cogpsych.org] for fear training?

Re:Auntie Mandy's No-Scan Panties (1)

Ignis Flatus (689403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691203)

so basically, what you're saying is this technology makes us no safer than before? you could just strap on a prosthetic johnson with a hidden compartment, or rubber-cement yourself some plastique tatas. or stuff a snuke in your sneech. doesn't do a damn thing. nothing but shock and awwww.

Geez, (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690811)

Government-sponsored voyeurism has reached a new low. Who are we protecting ourselves against again?

Re:Geez, (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690859)

Thankfully that 1/3 of the population is overweight. so after the first week of watching 'naked' people, the person watching in the closed room would have to block out everything.

Re:Geez, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691051)

MOD PARENT UP +5 INSIGHTFUL

Re:Geez, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691093)

MOD PARENT UP +5 INSIGHTFUL
Why?

Re:Geez, (5, Funny)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691279)

Actually, it's fat people that can compromise security. You could quite easily hide something such as a knife in a fold of fat (OK, obese people). That won't get picked up by the scanner.

Re:Geez, (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690951)

....Who are we protecting ourselves against again?
That is the most sane question to ask. period.

Where are the threats? Where are the terrorists? Where is the danger? Is there ANYONE on /. that knows where the proven irrefutable answers are?

These scanners are not necessary in any other country. Not even those that have actual terrorist living there (according to bushco). What is the real reason for these scanners?

I'm betting that it is to acclimatize the populace to intrusive searches for 'security' reasons.

Yes, put on the tin foil hat, pass the ammo pal. Only the most ignorant of terrorists would attack with airplanes again. While we are concentrating on making sure grandma is wearing her support hose and not disguised C4, they will be happily planning to poison water supplies or 'assplode' nuclear power stations... well, that is if there ARE any more terrorist plots.

If you listen to what Bin Laden supposedly said, he has already won. He knew what the neocons had planned for the NWO, and was probably part of it. He played his part.

Now, take off the tin foil hat and put on the thinking one. What are these scanners protecting us from? Where is the evidence,never mind proof, that we need protection from that? Go ahead, give us a list of things, and cite your original source of information provided as proof of such threats.

This is an open challenge to anyone. Show me the money!! Prove that such measures are needed. Don't forget to prove how these measures stop airport staff from planting bombs or drugs in someone's luggage. ......

time passes

I'm waiting... well?

Re:Geez, (2, Informative)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691075)

I'm betting that it is to acclimatize the populace to intrusive searches for 'security' reasons.

It has more to do with fear and making money than it has to do with your worry. Not that the former won't lead to the latter.

Re:Geez, (4, Insightful)

arctanx (1187415) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691255)

You're right, there. We have big companies coming up with these wonderful new technologies for "combating terrorism" and marketing them directly to airports/the TSA.

It would be a sticky position to be in as an airport manager. You're personally taking a lot of responsibility to make sure that your passengers are safe. If some company comes and offers you a security device which does work well, and guilts you into thinking that if you don't buy it you're putting your passengers' safety at risk, I reckon you would buy it. And use it too.

So it's a combination of marketing and accountability. Everybody's looking to blame somebody these days, and when it's very difficult to point at terrorists... well maybe it's the citizens who didn't put in the right security who take the blame instead. We'll see... if anything ever happens.

Re:Geez, (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691081)

I'm guessing you've never flown El Al.

Re:Geez, (1, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691141)

Nope, not posting anon. If you've flown El Al and find they need security, well, ask yourself why? Go ahead, history is not just for librarians, look it up, ask why? Find the answer.

The nation of Israel has been called one of the biggest terrorist threats facing mankind in the last 40 years. So, again, why?

I'm waiting for your answer too.

Re:Geez, (5, Interesting)

chaosite (930734) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691271)

Mind you, El Al has tested these sort of scanners before, and gave up on the idea because Israeli privacy laws currently forbid it.

Just saying.

Re:Geez, (0, Flamebait)

furball (2853) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691201)

These scanners are not necessary in any other country.
Of course not. But then other countries like Sri Lanka just put the metal detectors at the door to the airport and not just inside it.

You should travel the world some before speaking about countries you've never been to.

Re:Geez, (5, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691037)

From FTA:

"Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said. "They think it's a piece of security they're willing to do."
Yeah, most people just wish deep down they could walk around the airport naked in the first place.

Re:Geez, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691191)

From FTA:

"Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said. "They think it's a piece of security they're willing to do."
Oh, sure, I'm just going to take this guy's word for it that the passengers don't think it's a big deal.

And also from TFA:

Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.

Re:Geez, (1, Informative)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691067)

RTFA. This is used as a traveler-selected alternative to a pat-down when selected for a secondary screening. Your choice is a pat-down or a scan. It's not for the vast majority of travelers.

Re:Geez, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691185)

Americans. That's who.

And this is one of the reasons why... (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690823)

I don't fly any longer.

There are other reasons as well, but in a nutshell, the entire process has gone so far downhill I'd rather drive, even all the way across the country.

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690881)


I totally agree -- but nobody will rent me a car for my trip to Europe. ;)

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690905)

I totally agree -- but nobody will rent me a car for my trip to Europe. ;)
AC, meet Boat.

Boat, meet AC.

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (3, Interesting)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690891)

It occurred to me recently when they started charging to bring almost any luggage with you at all, that actually they are trying to make flying such a ridiculous process that people will just stop doing it unless they really need to.

Think about it. The new fees on checked luggage are just going to cause people to push the envelope of carry on bags to the point the boarding/unboarding process is unbearable. Add on to that the 3-1-1, you can't bring liquids with you at all if you can't check baggage and you're not allowed to carry them on. Now they also are going to be looking at basically naked pictures of you as you get on the plane, and, oh yeah, don't forget you are paying a lot of money for this poor treatment, and soon the sodas won't even be free.

No one in their right mind would fly at all under these circumstances, and that's exactly what they want.

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (2, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690923)

Add to that the fact that the average airline seat was designed to fit the human body perfectly... by testing the fit against a one-armed, one-legged midget with a fetish for being confined.

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (4, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690955)

That's not what they want. Fuel has moved from 10% of the airlines' cost to more than half, in some cases. Nearly a dozen airlines have folded in the last few months, and even the largest carriers are getting panicky. If anything, this is more problematic than the post-9/11 jitters, because everyone knew they would subside, but no one knows if this is going to be a bubble or if it's the new standard for oil. As someone who likes to fly 3-5 times a year (and would like to fly more), I'm concerned that what used to be comfortable $300 flights (I'm 5'4") will become crowded $450 flights, and that makes it hard for me to justify the expense.

The airlines would love to get back to competing on fares while also having a comfortable profit margin. It's just not in the cards right now.

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691161)

Yes, well, if they're going to be charging a lot of money for an uncomfortable experience, it doesn't seem very smart to pre-annoy the living heck out of the customers before they even get on the aircraft.

They don't need to be doing any of this nonsense. They just need to armor the cockpit and plop an air marshal on each flight. That reduces the threat to the less than it used to be; the trigger for all this hysteria was flying the aircraft into extremely high value and heavily populated buildings. So make that impossible and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

The real problem here is that hysteria is meat and potatoes for political stumping. Politicians have every reason to push this crap around -- it saves them from having to deal with real issues. Like health care, the infrastructure, the national debt, erosion of the constitution... you know, stuff that actually matters. But a huge number of people are gullible and stupid, and that's why this crap will never end, barring total collapse of the government.

Democracy is flawed from the outset. It allows any two uninformed people to outvote an informed person in a context where informed people are rare. Both in the general public and in the congress. Game rigged to fail, right there.

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691261)

I agree for the most part (except the number of marshals -- there are something like 30,000 domestic flights per day in the US, and that would be a very expensive program). There's no need to do most of the intrusive screening that goes on, and while I'm very much in favor of a strong defense, there are some very lame decisions being made by Congress that should be left to the Pentagon (they wanted to retire the USS Kennedy many years ago to save money, and someone in Congress wouldn't let them). I'm fine with metal detectors (and I'm actually fine with both this and backscatter scanning if it lets me bring my damned drink with me), but let's move the line along a little, hmm?

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691107)

No one in their right mind would fly at all under these circumstances, and that's exactly what they want.
.. that all those who are flying are not in their right mind? Isn't that supposedly what caused this problem in the first place?

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691047)

What if you need to go further than that - outside the country?

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (2, Interesting)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691097)

Ocean liner. Fine meals, suites, good company, pools, ocean view, time to reflect, luxury in general. When you get where you're going, rent a private vehicle, presuming you're going significantly inshore. Possibly train travel; depends on the country. Trains can be luxurious and fine; or they can be just like aircraft. Research is worth doing before you travel.

When I compare going on an aircraft to an ocean liner, the aircraft comes off as an experience somewhat akin to a few hours in a hamster cage. With crowded, angry hamsters and mad scientists at the cage door.

I pity you, Fool. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691193)

Ocean liners might be great for transatlantic crossings (well.. they were, anyway, until the queen mary stopped doing that), but your friends will never let you travel that way.

Somehow, you're going to end up drinking drugged milk yet again, and have to cut yourself down from the tree after you wake up.

Re:And this is one of the reasons why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691195)

Ya, spending a few weeks on a boat is such better deal.

First Post? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690825)

D*mn, I guess not. If only these scanners took less time.

That's why I'm working on my . . . (4, Funny)

rev_sanchez (691443) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690837)

Silence of the Lambs style human skin suit. A man needs his privacy.

This is crap (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690843)

Harmless my ass... where are the long term studies about what this will do to people?

This is the same retarded TSA that we're used to.. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO LOOK THROUGH MY CLOTHES?

The TSA needs to be disbanded and its employees thrown in to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Next thing you know, there will be a whole new "Gone Wild" Series...

Women, the great enigma. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690853)

Women. The great enigma. Every man who desires them treats them differently, and the dance between one man and one woman as they work shyly and tenderly towards each other is as unique as a snowflake on a cold late autumn night, fragile and yet beautiful.

Some men are coarse, and wish to woo their ladies with feats of strength and masculinity. Often tall and powerful, they cast themselves as the protector to the protected, the coccoon to the lady's butterfly. Eager to prove themselves, they will be loud, brash, but never disrespectful, and will win their prize with acts of courage and valour.

Some men, on the other hand, are gentle. They behave towards a woman they desire as a honeybee would to a flower, delicately circling her before coming in to make his move, entering into a relationship where neither can survive without the other - as the honeybee to the flower, as the yin to the yang, is the man to the woman. More introverted but no less eager, he will aim to triumph in the game of love with gifts, such as chocolate, or flowers, or his mere presence on a night where she needs him most.

Both are filled with wonderment and fascination, a process that has danced for thousands of years, for millions of couples in hundreds of countries. You will have to find your own way to dance this ancient, timeless dance, but sure enough, you will find your feet, and you will find your partner in your own way.

Me, you ask? Well, I've never touched a woman, because I was born with cats for hands.

Might be a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690857)

This being the USA, land of the self-rightous puritans, there is some hope that this will finally make people stop behaving like sheep.

Fake elections, illegal wars and torture are fine. But now they want to see our wimmin naked! That's going too far!

Re:Might be a good thing (5, Interesting)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690875)

Fake elections, illegal wars and torture are fine. But now they want to see our wimmin naked! That's going too far!

Even worse: They want to see our children naked!

Please will someone (aside from the TSA and pedophiles) please think of the children!

Would the recorded images of people under 18 be considered child porn?

Re:Might be a good thing (1)

saitoh (589746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691277)

At a technical level, yes. You have a recorded image of someone under the age of 18 that depicts sexual acts *or* shows genitals. A legal definition would probably be worded differently, but as I understand it (and guess what, IANAL), it would count.

Re:Might be a good thing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691147)

Fake elections, illegal wars and torture are fine.
The people who claim the election was fake remind me of people at the bar who complain about the refs fixing the game. The 2000 election was so close it was within the error rate of the system.
Illegal wars? Unpopular, yes... illegal no. There is no real body that decides whether a war is illegal or not... beside it would mean France, UK, Germany, and a bunch of other nations are accessories to a crime.
Torture? I've seen worse done to pledges at a fraternity.

Instead of sitting around and griping, organize. The vocal minority has been ruling the US, and the only way a more moderate government will come to power is if the silent majority actually speaks up for a change. The US is ruled by 30% of the population - either the 30% who vote democrat, or the 30% who vote republican. Most people remain silent and just accept the motivations of the voting extremists, until that changes, then the country will continue to be ruled by extremists.

Constitutional law (4, Interesting)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690877)

Wouldn't this fall under the auspices of unreasonable search and seizure? It seems to me this manner of search invades personal privacy for no other reason than everyone is a criminal in the eyes of the TSA.

I would hope that this matter gets brought up in SCOTUS

Re:Constitutional law (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690931)

No, it would not, because you fail to realise this:

security > constitutional rights

Now it would probably be true, if every politician nowadays didn't shit all over the constitution.

Re:Constitutional law (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690985)

<Devil's Advocate>You don't want to consent, fine. You don't fly. Flying isn't a guaranteed right and you are more then welcome to drive.</Devil's Advocate>

Re:Constitutional law (4, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691225)

And that would be correct.. BEFORE THE TSA. when the airlines were contracting private security companies to do the screening, they could set whatever terms they wanted on the ticket.

But TSA doing it, as an agency under a cabinet level department, is pretty squarely in the unconstitutional realm.

Re:Constitutional law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691289)

Flying isn't a right no, but the 4th amendment is damn solid, and 'desire to board an airplane' falls WAY short of 'probable cause' considering the HUGE percentage of the population that flys regularly.

Lets consider the actual text of the 4th shall we?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The last bit is great, it prevents the issue of blanket warrants, warrants have to be specific.

Of course the 4th isn't the only problem, we have the tenth to worry about too.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Though admittedly the 4th is far more applicable here, and easier to prove violation of thanks to loop holes you can drive a convoy through like the 'commerce clause'.

Either way the TSA and its activities are unconstitutional. Notice I didn't say illegal, there is a difference.

Want to have some fun? email the TSA (I did shortly after they launched their blog) ask them how their reconcile their existence and activities with the 4th amendment. I'm still waiting for a reply.

Re:Constitutional law (3, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690995)

No.

Firstly, it's your option to fly, not your right. That other methods are slower and less convenient doesn't matter from this perspective.

Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.

Re:Constitutional law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691031)

Secondly, you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search
that does not address the concern of unreasonable search.

Re:Constitutional law (1, Interesting)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691131)

It's not unreasonable search. This has been addressed before by the courts and many times here on Slashdot. Flying is a choice. If you choose not to go through the security measures, that means you choose not to fly (at least commercially). You are free to take other routes that do not have the same level of security.

Re:Constitutional law (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691159)

you may refuse the scan and instead opt for a physical pat-down search.

From the article:

Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth.

How does a passenger refuse the scan if they're not told what's going on until after the fact, or given the option of refusing the scan?

Re:Constitutional law (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691215)

Perhaps, but no one's forcing you to fly anywhere. You're only searched if you /choose/ to use civilian aircraft. Don't want to be searched? Drive or do a videoconference instead.

(I'm not justifying this, just pointing out a potential legal loophole)

just say no (5, Informative)

drDugan (219551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690885)

I recently saw signs for this when going through LAX - but the serurity point I wnt through did not have them installed yet.

The sign I read had one line at the bottom that said you could opt/ask not to go through the screening process. It did not say what horrid, annoying or time conuming process was the alternative.

Like so many other times when dealing with law enforcement, simply say "no, I'd rather not."

Re:just say no (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690947)

In another article I read they said that the alternative was a pat-down by an officer.

Re:just say no (2, Insightful)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691259)

the alternative was a pat-down by an officer.

i.e. another form of warrantless search where no probable cause exists that is allowed "because it's just too important not to do it!"

Me want Pics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690897)

I wanna see sample pics of what the output looks like. If they are pretty good and these machines become more popular I expect leaked videos/pictures in a torrent source near you!

um, radiation (0)

drDugan (219551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690935)

FTA
"The scanners bounce harmless "millimeter waves" off passengers"

What the fSck does that mean? In the many years I studies physics, there were no particles I knew of that created something called "millimeter waves". Marketing 1-0-1: tell people it's harmless.

The correct words they meant to use were: "backscatter radiation". Those are photos, baby. Granted, it is a very low dose, but the biological effects of radiation are extremely complex. Even though there are some documented cases where low radiation doeses can have beneficial side effects, almost all cases of increased exposure to radiation are harmful to some degree.

Re:um, radiation (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690971)

That's the wavelength. It uses radio, I'm assuming like ultrasound, except it doesn't penetrate your skin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave
It would be within the range of 57-64 GHz.

Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves (4, Informative)

IvyKing (732111) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691003)

If I recall correctly, the systme uses ~30GHz radiation for the scanning. Power levels are in line with a normal urban environment (I've read the safety report on the machine) - think people walking by with cell phones. Since the wavelength is about 1 cm, the image resolution isn't going to be much better than 1 cm - which is certainly adequate to determine gender.


Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.

Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691019)

the image resolution isn't going to be much better than 1 cm - which is certainly adequate to determine gender.
You're new around here, aren't you?

Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves (5, Insightful)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691129)

Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.

No the most embarrassing thing would be that people will willingly submit themselves to this absurd violation of privacy without even knowing, or more importantly, caring, why they should.

Re:Might be more accurate to say centimeter waves (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691293)

>Probably the most embarrassing thing that would be revealing some of the locations of body piercings.

Or perhaps the dreaded, "Its a man, baby!" scenario.

Re:um, radiation (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691175)

In the many years I studies physics, there were no particles I knew of that created something called "millimeter waves".

Er, studied physics where?

There's nothing mysterious about millimeter waves. They're from about 30GHz to 300GHz. They're not ionizing radiation, like X-rays. Here's a simple scanning millimeter wave radar system [spbstu.ru] with pictures of the components and images from the system. Note the tiny waveguide and feed horn. It's a radar in miniature. This little unit runs at 35GHz, so it's just barely into the millimeter range.

In the millimeter RF range, it seems to be possible to get up to about 100GHz with off the shelf components [terabeam-hxi.com] using Gunn diodes and GaAs transistors. Above 100GHz is still mostly an area for experimental work. There are people working on "to 100GHz and beyond! [farran.com] . But not much is really working up there yet.

This isn't a backscatter X-ray system. That's a completely different technology.

Re:um, radiation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691221)

Millimeter waves are EM waves with a wavelength of one millimeter. Something between a microwave and a a run of the mill radio wave. It's basically radar. I hope you brought your steel panties.

Those ominous TSA emblems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690937)

Might as well be hammer and sickles. Or swastikas. Socialism, here we come!

What a waste (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690941)

of our money. Where is the approval process? Who said this was a good thing worth every penny?

I'm allergic to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23690975)

Remember those guys who said they were allergic to WiFi?

I think I've come down with an allergy to Millimeter Waves. Hell, I wonder how they deal with clausterphobic people - it sure as hell is still a closed and confined place, even if it is clear glass.

I say, fake a panic attack in the device, then collapse. Sure its a spectacle, and sure it will delay your departure, but think of the stories you'll tell later!

Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing (0, Offtopic)

SonicSpike (242293) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690997)

People bitch and moan about airport security yet they keep voting for people who give them bigger and more intrusive government.

US Congressman and Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) voted against the DHS / TSA nonsense. Why did he receive as few votes as he did?

Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing (1)

Hungus (585181) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691085)

Because most Americans do not take the time to be informed, let alone think about the implications of various actions (This is likely true worldwide not just with Americans)

Note I am an American

Not everyone is a Libertarian. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691149)

I don't support Ron Paul precisely because I am well-informed about his positions and the policies he advocates.

Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691091)

Because he's running as a Republican, and a lot of them, whatever their initial feelings about the war, don't want to leave Iraq right now, because it looks like we can't finish what we started and/or can't clean up after ourselves.

There are things about Ron Paul that I like quite a lot. But despite the bungling of the war that was the result of meddling and improper planning on the part of Rumsfeld, among others, (we were supposed to learn from Vietnam that wars are never to be micromanaged by politicians), we caused a mess in Iraq, and we need to see it through to its end.

A number of politicians in Iraq -- some of them quite powerful -- are moving in favor of a forced draw-down of US and allied troops, especially as Iraqi forces are doing much better at handling operations, and are suffering fewer desertions, though the rate is still startlingly high. Gen. Petraeus has said that he believes the draw-down will continue after the July pause. It's not going to drop below 100,000 this year, but it very well may do so next year, and it may continue to the point that, aside from a few rapid-reaction forces and air cover (think West Germany in the Cold War, though not quite at that level), the US doesn't maintain much there at all. There's still time to further break things, of course, but I think there's a generally positive path right now.

That's getting a little off-topic. Back on the main point, aside from Iraq, there's no chance at all that Paul would have been able to do most of the things that he wants to do. The IRS isn't going away anytime soon, nor is the Department of Education. He's just not going to get that with a Democratic Congress. He would probably have issues getting strict constructionist judges onto the courts. I have to wonder how effective he would be as president.

Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing (2, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691157)

I have to wonder how effective he would be as president.

On the flipside, he could and probably would veto pretty much any needless expansion of government, funding bills, etc...

Total Stalemate.

On the plus side, in my experience a government that does nothing is doing better than usual.

Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing (1)

SonicSpike (242293) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691251)

Exactly... something about a truck load of veto pens.

But really you hit the nail on the head. The President's job is to uphold the Constitution (read the oath of office sometime). And if legislation passes across his desk that he feels is unconstitutional than it is his duty to veto it.

Since Ron has a better understanding of the Constitution than most people in Washington, he probably would veto almost everything as you have said.

Stale mate, or Congress would go around him. Either way he would be doing his job which we haven't had from a President in decades, maybe even a century or more.

Re:Ron Paul wouldn't allow this sort of thing (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691285)

Stalemate presumes that he has the votes in Congress to avoid an override. Congress has shown that when it comes to passing out money to constituents, they will override by a very large margin. He would lose to the court of public opinion if he decided that any spending bill funding things he doesn't like would get vetoed.

His views work for his state, and he's a welcome part of politics to me. He brings up issues that others don't want to talk about. There are people on the left who are the same way in my eyes. It's good to debate these things. But in a government like ours, idealism must sometimes give way to pragmatism.

Alone? Separate Room? (2, Funny)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 6 years ago | (#23690999)

...airports around the US are beginning to use a new type of body-scanning machine which records pictures of travelers underneath their clothing. The process takes roughly 30 seconds, and the person viewing the pictures is located in a separate room.
So, basically, it's like one of those "private rooms" in a porn shop. Except, the slide show pictures come every thirty seconds and you could get anybody from the hot blonde who is heading to Florida with her friends to...well...this guy [frontierwebdesign.com] (possibly NSFW).

Diseases (1)

WetCat (558132) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691023)

Cancer, etc?
What happens if the operator of this machine detects some disease of a passenger? May be cancer in early stage? Or tuberculosis? Should he notify a passenger?

Re:Diseases (1)

MiKM (752717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691061)

You're assuming that the operator has the medical knowledge necessary to diagnose tuberculosis or cancer.

Re:Diseases (2, Funny)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691121)

Only if the tumor is in the shape of a gun or knife.

It's a millimeter-wave imaging system (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691027)

This isn't an X-ray machine, or even a Z-backscatter machine. It's a millimeter wave device. TSA has a web page [tsa.gov] for the thing. It's not as detailed as a Z-backscatter image.

Here's the product page for the ProVision scanner. [dsxray.com] It's made by Level 3 Communications.

This thing was first announced last year, so the story is out of date.

Stupid yankees (0, Flamebait)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691053)

Those stupid yankees oughta do something about their hangups about nudidy.

I'm looking forward to go tomorrow to the naked bike ride, where I'll have thousands of people look at me wearing only my bike on the street.

Sheep (1)

minion (162631) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691109)

From the article:

Schear, the Baltimore security director, said only 4% of passengers decline.
...

"Most passengers don't think it's any big deal," Schear said. "They think it's a piece of security they're willing to do."
 
 


Can we all say "baaaa?"

Re:Sheep (1)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691257)

Can we all say "fuck this shit, I will never fly at an airport that has this absolute BS?"

I'm going through with a hardon (3, Funny)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691113)

Gotta give those TSA pukes a little thrill. Or maybe I'll go through wearing a wig and a dress. The female screener will REALLY enjoy that. I wonder if anyone ever rubbed one out as the passed through the metal detector?

I'm just trying to make travel more enjoyable for everybody.

Re:I'm going through with a hardon (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691189)

1. Take a dildo and wrap it in tinfoil.
2. Place dildo in your co-workers carry-on bag.
3. Allow co-worker to be the first to have his bag scanned.

4. Enjoy that moment!

SCHWEEET!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691115)

Let's try it out on some Muslim babes!

Stupid americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23691199)

While 1000s of Americans are jobless the business of fear keep making big $$$.

Serves you right American fucking pigs. Hope you all get raped in the ass in the false name of freedom.

Viva Canada!!!!!

Nice! (1)

DolomiteZipper (768505) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691209)

Cool!

Make it fair (3, Insightful)

mathkicks (895227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23691229)

How about the officer watching remotely sits in one of these things so all passengers can look at who is looking at them. I bet they'd get a ton of applications for that job...
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>