Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Freshman Representative Opposes "TSA Porn"

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the things-we-really-really-don't-want-to-see dept.

Transportation 620

An anonymous reader writes "Not content to simply follow the 'anything to protect American lives' mantra, freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has introduced a bill to prohibit mandatory full body scans at airports. Chaffetz states, 'The images offer a disturbingly accurate view of a person's body underneath clothing ... Americans should not be required to expose their bodies in this manner in order to fly.' He goes on to note that the ACLU has expressed support for the bill. Maybe we don't need tin-foil sports coats to go with our tin-foil hats. For reference, the Daily Herald has a story featuring images from the millimeter wavelength imager, and we've talked about the scanners before."

cancel ×

620 comments

Being a policeman is only easy in a police state. (4, Insightful)

Art Popp (29075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026307)

Everywhere else it is vastly less efficient. With every step forward in efficiency comes a step backward in human rights and human dignity.

Nothing to see here.... Except a new web site called "Are those real?" finally with proof.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (5, Funny)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026383)

On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026495)

More likely to get a lot of TSA staff claiming for compensation!

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (4, Funny)

omris (1211900) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026905)

'I'm sorry sir, but your worker's comp doesn't cover eye bleach. Stop asking your employer to purchase nudie mags.'

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (5, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026835)

On the upside, if everyone could see what you looked like naked then just maybe we could gain some headway into stopping the obesity trend in America.

Or a jumpstart to the Cult of the Eyeless.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026923)

Right. Because no one can tell that you're vastly overweight if you're wearing clothes.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (0, Troll)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026447)

Every time I've seen them scanning osmeone its a hot chick with big boobs.... And all the guys are over looking at the screen... It's never Nanna or Billy Ray with his beer gut....

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (5, Informative)

Yo Grark (465041) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026857)

Every time I've seen them scanning osmeone its a hot chick with big boobs.... And all the guys are over looking at the screen... It's never Nanna or Billy Ray with his beer gut....

Apparently you don't know how this works. The people out front have no way of seeing the scans, that's the job of specially trained people who watch in back and who can't see the line coming so no "tehee watch this one" since it's done in real time.

IF there's a reasons to suspect anything, the backroomers radio the floor to search.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026473)

I've long said, in response to "but this will only make the police's jobs harder!" complaints about court rulings, etc... that that is precisely and specifically what the Bill of Rights was intended to do - make the police's job harder.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (0, Offtopic)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026575)

That certainly explains why Game Wardens never complain about not having enough power.

Re:Being a policeman is only easy in a police stat (5, Insightful)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026837)

They can go through all your data, they can "mistakenly" put you on a danger list, they can force you to leave random stuff behind, and the one thing the politicians take issue with is the one device that might actually make security FASTER because OMG BOOBIES.

This is a farce, not a victory for "human dignity".

I was scanned in LAX (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026337)

Once, passing through LAX, I was pulled aside for a millimeter scan. It was painless and over relatively quickly.

Here's the problem: all this extra security sucks. And with the numerous accounts of tests showing weapons passing through security checkpoints unnoticed, the extra security is fairly useless as well.

At least they have a nice shot of my genitals.

Re:I was scanned in LAX (5, Insightful)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026489)

Yup, airport security is part of a trend known as "Security Theater". Get the proles to feel secure by making a show of it and then act surprised when the 1 in 10,000,000 event happens with or without the show.

At least now its a security porn theather...

Re:I was scanned in LAX (-1, Troll)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026615)

Well, it is "security theater" in that, their goal isn't "security". It is all part of the "war on drugs". You know when they scan your Drivers License all over with a UV light? It isn't so they can see the hologram watermarks... it is to check for cocaine residue. Do you know that arc you walk through that blows air at you to check for explosives? Yeah, it's checking for pot. You know why you can't have a container of liquid over 3 oz? Because their little x-ray device doesn't work so great on them, and they don't want you smuggling your drugs in your shampoo.

Re:I was scanned in LAX (5, Insightful)

Chlorine Trifluoride (1517149) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026697)

[citation needed]

Re:I was scanned in LAX (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026907)

Ditto.

Pretty strong accusations require at least a link to an untrustworthy site.

Re:I was scanned in LAX (5, Informative)

x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026767)

The heraldextra link is slashdotted but Google has plenty of examples [google.com] of what the "TSA Porn" pictures are. I could see why people would take offense to these shots. It wouldn't bother me a whole lot if it was a picture of myself but I can identify with the Representative that I wouldn't want anyone to look at these kinds of images of my wife or children.

Re:I was scanned in LAX (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026851)

So the next time they want a plane they will just board it with baggage handlers and other "service" people.

It isn't like that those who want to cause mischief aren't beyond planning and implementing across years. Let alone the fact they can read the same papers we can.

The next plane to come down does so by missile, have a nice day screening passengers for that. It will make the panic against flying after 9/11 look like small potatoes.

Re:I was scanned in LAX--- Relaxed? Or not? (2, Informative)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026885)

Well, if someone enters the scanner socked, locked and ready to rock, hopefully the millimetre scanner detects something appearing or weighing in at 1,397 mm...

Butt, on the other hand, the mm scan could be useful for detecting collapsed, polymer truncheons/batons and daggers that otherwise would be/might be found in a luggage scan. And, the mm scan can detect mules (drugs carriers) who've been surgically invaded to carry cocaine under their skin. Sure, drug-sniffer dogs can do this, too, but the mm scan might find people who have the scars from previous runs, and help DEA get a bead on their asses and their handlers, too. I imagine this database producing TONS of information to be added to the government/s' arsenal...

http://www.visualanalytics.com/ [visualanalytics.com]
http://www.visualanalytics.com/products/visuaLinks/vlFeatures/placements/Starburst.cfm [visualanalytics.com]
http://www.visualanalytics.com/products/visuaLinks/vlFeatures/index.cfm [visualanalytics.com]

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

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09525/nsf09525.htm [nsf.gov]

Re:I was scanned in LAX (0)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026525)

At least they have a nice shot of my genitals. Buddy, the TSA doesn't have a wide-angle lens big enough to take that image of me!

Re:I was scanned in LAX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026681)

That's commonly known as elephantiasis. If your balls are riding shotgun, see a doctor.

Re:I was scanned in LAX (4, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026641)

And with the numerous accounts of tests showing weapons passing through security checkpoints unnoticed, the extra security is fairly useless as well.

This deserves further analysis. We need to remember that, whatever else happens, it's humans who are the ones who finally decide whether something's a weapon or not. Whether something can be used to hijack/destroy and airplane is fairly objective; fingernail clippers cannot, a handgun can. Whether or not a human decides whether it can be is entirely subjective and dependent on many factors.

First of all, there's the training. They spend at most a few months learning how to foil every single method to get something through security. There's no way they'll catch everything. The x-ray scans of bags moving through the conveyor belts are hard to read and easy to foil. Anyone remember the guy who hid lockpicks in his luggage without any extra scrutiny?

Second, these people aren't paid a lot of money. There's nothing magical in the amount of money that somebody earns, but it is a fairly good indicator of how much they're valued and trained and the ability to retain talented people. In this case, a talented person is one who can provide thorough security while still making the process run smoothly for all the people involved. With how little they're paid, I'm guessing that TSA agents are by and large not a talented and eager group.

Third, humans are subject to a lot of biases. Something as simple as how long they've been staring at x-rays can affect how attentive they are. By the 3000th bag, they're not checking as thoroughly as they were with the first one. If they're having a bad day, they're more likely to single out bags or people for additional training and be more strict. If they have an ax to grind against a group for whatever reason, they're going to treat members of that group worse while treating members of groups they like better.

There's no way around these fundamental problems. Humans are always going to be humans, and as anyone knows who deals with digital security, humans are the weakest link 95% of the time. Most security measures don't take this into account. Nor do they take into account that the system is only as strong as the weakest point, which in this case is probably the x-raying of the bag. Very few people are going to carry a weapon on their person when they can pass it through in their carry ons more easily. The sooner this topic becomes less political and falls into the domain of people with aims towards security instead of publicity, the better.

Re:I was scanned in LAX (4, Interesting)

LatencyKills (1213908) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026783)

Every time I go through the airport, and regrettably my job has recently involved a fair amount of travel, I'm struck my how pointless the whole security drama is. They're seizing closed soda cans, sealed bottles of water, women are removing flip flops with like 1/4" soles, they're hassling a 90 year old guy over a bottle of eyedrops because he doesn't have it in a quart sandwich bag. Did someone somewhere tell them that the bigger dicks they are, the more pointless inconvenience they create, the more people are going to believe they're safer? Not that it's possible, but I find myself wondering how an airline that advertised itself has having zero security checks would do. It would be an interesting indicator of just how big a terrorist target the average person believes a plane to be.

Re:I was scanned in LAX (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026947)

It's not their fault, it's the fault of the people setting the idiotic policies. They just follow the rules they're given, and I'm sure they're frequently tested by having undercover TSA inspectors go through the security lines.

Yes! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026339)

Now I can exact my revenge on the TSA. After I walk through a couple three times they'll either all be blind or wish they were!

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026373)

Heh... I suspect that most of them if they don't go blind from the horror, they'll want to spork their eyes out to prevent them seeing the same ever again...

sports coat? (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026345)

Maybe we don't need tin-foil sports coats to go with our tin-foil hats

Who needed a tinfoil sportcoat? I don't care if they see a fuzzy outline of my moobs at the airport.

A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...

Well, I use one, and ever since I started using a whole roll of tinfoil, I get lots of extra attention from the ladies. I'm not about to stop using it just because they might stop scanning my nads at the airport.

Re:sports coat? (3, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026425)

A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...

Why? They won't have the necessary resolution to see anything anyway...

Re:sports coat? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026503)

You should've kept reading... I use the whole roll of tinfoil to get around that problem, hence the increased attention from the ladies.

Re:sports coat? (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026545)

Use an extra pair of socks. Much more comfortable than that cardboard tube, and nobody tries to drag you to the hospital for priapism.

Re:sports coat? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026617)

Microwave gun?

Panties? (1)

patro (104336) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026637)

Tinfoil panties to everyone!

Derek Smalls? (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026673)

Is that you?

Remember when this happened to you? Third paragraph : http://www.combustiblecelluloid.com/thisistap.shtml [combustiblecelluloid.com]

Re:Derek Smalls? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026863)

I know. And then they didn't even do Stonehenge later that night...

Where's your savior now, leftists? (3, Interesting)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026355)

It took a True Republican (not a Bush-era corporate shill) to speak out against this transgression of basic dignity.

And yet no statement from the Democrats. Ubiquitous monitoring fits Obama's Socialist agenda perfectly.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists? (2, Informative)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026711)

Ubiquitous monitoring fits Obama's Socialist agenda perfectly.

Citation needed.

Obama's Socialist agenda

Dictionary needed.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists? (1, Offtopic)

Deagol (323173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026841)

He's from Utah. My guess is that LDS practitioners have some beef about TSA getting snaps of their magic underwear via this new scanning device. LDS folks also have a long, historical distrust of the feds. So, combine these and you have a wet-behind-the-ears politician who's idealistic enough to push through something that makes sense. Don't worry, he'll be brow-beaten until he falls in line.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026859)

And yet no statement from the Democrats. Ubiquitous monitoring fits Obama's Socialist agenda perfectly.

(1) Where is the statement from the other Republicans?

(2) Ubiquitous monitoring has nothing to do with Socialism. Please learn what terms mean before using them.

(3) Why would any Democrats comment? The bill is not written. It has not been submitted. All that exists is a posturing statement from Chaffetz that his first bill will be on this issue.

Oh, and your "true Republican"? That remains to be seen. The guy has a very, very short political history, and he got his start as a Democrat (working on Dukakis's campaign). He then fled the sinking ship and declared himself a Republican after Dukakis lost. He may be a "true Republican" or he may be an opportunist... I don't know. It remains to be seen.

Re:Where's your savior now, leftists? (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026883)

It's not Obama's agenda. It's the Dusseldorf's, or the Rickenbacker's, or Brickenbrauer's, or Rutabaga's, or whoever those fuckers are out there in that Bavarian castle up in the mountains...

Maybe he can help me. (0, Troll)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026367)

Can he pass a bill that will force doctors to develop accurate technology to check my prostate health without violating the sanctity of my asshole?

Seriously, why should I be violated in terms of privacy and ass virginity just to be protected?

Re:Maybe he can help me. (2, Funny)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026825)

Peter Griffin, is that you?

[that episode was on AS last nite]

Fucking mormons (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026387)

Fucking mormons - go back to your five wives in Utah and stay out of our government.

Re:Fucking mormons (2, Insightful)

ari_j (90255) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026451)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what this is about. It has nothing to do with the gradual erosion of privacy from government intrusion and the not always gradual steps toward a police state.

Mandatory no, voluntary yes (1)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026389)

I think forcing people into any sort of invasive scan is overboard, but keeping this as an alternative to a pat-down, or even as an option is not a bad idea. I don't mind showing off to a few security guards that probably couldn't care less if it means I can get on the plane faster, but the key here is that it should be a choice.

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes (5, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026599)

Taking that attitude to it's logical extreme, shouldn't there be a "fast lane" at the security checkpoint for people that have no carry-on luggage and are also completely naked?

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes (2)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026797)

Actually, if I could have them express-check my bag (preferably carry-on) that contained no sharps or nitrates and I could stroll naked through a skip-security lane, I would. Toss my work-clothes, sleep-shorts, street-clothes, and notebooks into a gym bag and do a nude boogie on through security to get dressed and board my plane? Sign me up - I'm not proud.

Still though, it should be strictly a choice. If I want to wear a burka and deal with the metal detectors/x-rays/etc, that's up to me.

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026605)

That's how you will end up on the internet.

People will love the forbidden aspect of this, it will sell.

Re:Mandatory no, voluntary yes (3, Insightful)

maugle (1369813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026891)

The problem with "voluntary" security measures are that they quickly become practically mandatory: "Well, you can either opt for the invasive scan, or you can empty your pockets, take off your shoes, wait in line, go through the metal detector, get patted down while all your luggage is picked through (you refused the scan, you must have something to hide, right?), and end up missing your flight. Your choice."

it's about time (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026413)

Finally, a politician from my state is featured on slashdot for NOT being an idiot. Of course, anyone who saw this guy on the Colbert Report realizes that he's still an idiot, but the specific reason he's here isn't idiocy!

I really support anything that helps everyone on capitol hill and watching Fox News realize that prevention of terrorism isn't worth giving up everything.

Crazy Mormons (0, Flamebait)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026415)

He doesn't want anyone to see his magical underoos or else he won't be able to baptize the dead anymore.

Agreed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026427)

Americans [canada.com] definitely should not be even allowed, let alone required, to expose their bodies in this manner. And he is quite right to say this would be disturbingly accurate.

Swedes and Danes on the other hand...sign them up.

Millimeter waves? (3, Interesting)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026445)

Millimeter-wavelength imaging, eh?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/1330256 [slashdot.org]

The weapon focuses non-lethal millimeter-wave radiation onto humans, raising their skin surface temperature to an uncomfortable 130 F. The goal is to make the targets drop any weapons and flee the scene.

Just tweak the tuning knob a little bit...

Stupid christians (-1, Flamebait)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026457)

Stupid christians.

It’s only christianity that brainwashed people about not wanting to be seen naked.

I am not christian, and have been carefully raised without any christian influence whatsoever, and I have absolutely no problem with being totally naked in public nor do I have any problem with seeing people naked.

Re:Stupid christians (4, Funny)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026529)

Then you clearly haven't seen enough people naked.

Re:Stupid christians (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026557)

And when they come along with thought scanners, I suppose you'll blame some group for making us all private about our thoughts? Invasion of privacy, even what you consider unnecessary privacy, without a clearly compensating benefit, is wrong.

Re:Stupid christians (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026649)

Unless I'm mistaken, all human bodies are basically the same. Human minds on the other hand are totally different.

For example, right now I'm thinking how wonderful a orange infused whiskey would be. I'm all for privacy, but there is really nothing to hide on the human body.

The only thing I can come up with is if you had some kind of surgery or server medical problem you didn't want anyone to know about.

Beyond that, I've seen the screen shots of this tech and honestly, it doesn't show you nakid. It doesn't show anything I would consider any more revealing then wearing a spandex body suit. If this can make the lines go faster at the airports. I support it.

Re:Stupid christians (1)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026801)

Is that why your so anti-social.

You'd fit right in with the fundie christians that I know!

I always find that when children have been raised according to a strict ideology that they become a little odd. Pro religion or Anti-religion doesn't matter.

Re:Stupid christians (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026855)

I'm neither a Christian nor afraid of nudity.

But you do realize that both clothing and modesty predate Christianity, right? These things aren't new - I think you might have some misdirected anxiety...

Re:Stupid christians (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026889)

Why bash Christianity? Why not say the same thing about Muslims? Judaism? Buddhism?

You're a bigot. All your upbringing has done is made you one. I wouldn't be that proud of it, if I were you.

And you clearly haven't sat down on a seat that someone naked sat down on, after they have taken a crap. While it is clearly the "in thing" to bash Christianity, and all that, there are other reasons to wear clothes besides being prudish Christians.

Re:Stupid christians (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026909)

It's only christianity that brainwashed people about not wanting to be seen naked.

Are you on some form of highly potent crack? Both Islam and Judaism also have severe strictures against nudity, in fact probably more severe than Christianity; in fact, Christianity is basically a blend of old testament Judaism and Greek philosophy (guess which side they got their nudity taboos from).

Porn? (3, Insightful)

GerardAtJob (1245980) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026469)

He call that porn ? http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/body-scanners-372.jpg [impactlab.com] ...
If it's this kind of result, I really don't know why he's calling this "porn"...

Re:Porn? (5, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026669)

He call that porn ?

You call that English? ;-)

Re:Porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026849)

I'm not sure your link was very representative, so how about this one?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/05/18/airport.security.body.scans/index.html

The cartoony balls and penis in the second photo is kind of like something you might see spray-painted under an overpass.

Re:Porn? (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026919)

The gun and knife in that example would've easily been detected by a traditional metal detector though so I'm not sure what they're trying to justify here. Sure it LOOKS cool, but if the metal detector already alerts you to the gun and knife, what is the point of putting them through some additional multi-million dollar scanner other than to further dehumanize people by making them perform for your obedience training?

Re:Porn? (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026941)

and you still can't see the shiv he has inserted in his body cavity...

And the far-right of his own party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026471)

will find someone to run against him the primary in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...

Re:And the far-right of his own party (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026735)

will find someone to run against him the primary in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...

Doubtful. The only time the Republicans try to take down one of their own is when they are too far to the left (Arlen Specter) or too principled (Ron Paul). Still, all the same, we should be applauding conservatives any time they stand up for civil liberties.

Total Recall (4, Insightful)

DamageLabs (980310) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026513)

Unfortunately, this is going to be implemented sooner or later. Maybe not in this form or device, but it is a device that nicely complements the airport X-ray machines.

To the general public, this will mean less waiting time, faster boarding and less hassle through checkpoints. Most of them will look at this, if explained nicely, as a good thing.

Cancer risk? (0)

Moblaster (521614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026517)

Any time you use high-energy waves to do a scan, and at a length of 1mm these are 300Ghz+ high energy waves, you run the risk of increased cancer. After researching the web, there does not seem to be much debate or easily locatable research on the direct health risks of this technology versus the security risk it supposedly addresses.

Re:Cancer risk? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026747)

Not really. 1mm is lower frequency (less energy per photon) than visible light. Pretty safe unless they use so much energy it actually heats up your body mass and cooks some organs. Cook literally - think hardboiled eyeballs. If your eyeballs (most sensitive to this sort of heating) aren't cooking, the rest of you is fine.

It's not being investigated because no one has proposed even a plausible mechanism by which low frequency radio waves like any of these could cause mutation. Propose that mechanism first and then there's something to test for other than coincidence.

Re:Cancer risk? (2, Funny)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026871)

I hear the airport diner the town over is offering long pork for a low low price.

Re:Cancer risk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026757)

If you're that concerned about radiation, what are you doing at an airport? Don't you know that it's Earth's atmosphere which protects us from cosmic radiation and that planes fly above a good deal of the atmosphere?

[citation needed] (2, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026847)

at a length of 1mm these are 300Ghz+ high energy waves, you run the risk of increased cancer

Do you have any data to support that?

Any time people talk of "cancer risk" they should beware of differences in dosage. It's one thing smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, it's another thing if you once smelled the smoke of a distant fire.

Anyhow, 300 GHz waves are much less energetic than visible light. Will you spend the rest of your life in darkness for fear of the cancer risk in light?

Re:Cancer risk? (1)

SUB7IME (604466) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026929)

It's not the energy that is the problem, it's the energy match.

The energy match between a 1mm wave and submicrometer biological particles is essentially zero. Provided that the emission spectrum is sufficiently narrow, this should pose absolutely no additional risk of cancer.

(Caveat: if you operate any EMF-producing device at high enough power with a wide enough emission spectrum, you can imagine that the rare high-energy particles being emitted are common enough to cause damage. I'm not a physicist, but the useful parallel in biophysics would be the Boltzmann distribution.)

Re:Cancer risk? (2, Insightful)

PTBarnum (233319) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026949)

Any time you use high-energy waves to do a scan, and at a length of 1mm these are 300Ghz+ high energy waves, you run the risk of increased cancer.

If you're worried about the health effects of 300GHz+ high energy millimeter waves, you will probably be terrified to learn that almost all airports have been scanning passengers with 400THz+ super high energy nanometer waves for many years now.

For "reference"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026519)

They have some images of the "TSA porn" for "reference"? Suuuure. I totally believe that coming from Slashdot.

Compulsory (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026533)

The only weapon these folks are likely to find under my clothes will be perfectly easy to detect if they simply show me a few pictures of Natalie Portman. Probably quite a bit cheaper than the scanner, too.

Re:Compulsory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026979)

The only weapon these folks are likely to find under my clothes will be perfectly easy to detect if they simply show me a few pictures of Natalie Portman

A grower, not a shower then?

Is that a flock of flying pigs? (1)

cutecub (136606) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026539)

You know you're living in an alternate reality when a Republican congressman from Utah introduces a privacy-rights bill that is supported by the ACLU.

In other news: millions of damned souls are displaced by advancing glaciers.

-S

Re:Is that a flock of flying pigs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026613)

as a conservative i can only say that you're blinded by the mainstreams political goose stepping. thanks for falling victim to mindless propaganda.

Re:Is that a flock of flying pigs? (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026939)

It could be less about rights than about naked pictures. Also, he may be trying to protect the privacy of some Mormons who wear religious garments under their regular clothing (but those shouldn't show up on the scan).

Take a moment and thank this guy (5, Insightful)

Proteus (1926) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026563)

Take a moment, e-mail this guy your thanks. Then take one extra minute and tell your representative and senators that this guy has the right idea and should be supported. One message may not make a difference, but millions of slashdotters cheering them on will.

Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn.... (5, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026567)

So, when these guys scan someone who's under 18, aren't they liable for charges of child porn?

It seems to me that we are a nation of wildly conflicting laws, and everything can be "made" illegal in some way, regardless of the actual intent. This is why our courtrooms are so crowded, and 'justice' moves at a snail's pace.

Re:Arrest TSA officials for Child Porn.... (3, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026645)

Contrary to what the people on Slashdot tell you, every image of a nude person under the age of 18 is not necessarily child porn -- and a millimeter-wave scanner isn't exactly taking a nude photograph.

Just what we need (4, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026569)

It seems like when the TSA hires airport employees, they have the same guideline for hiring as the government had for hiring cops in "A Clockwork Orange". Every passenger seems to get treated with contempt, the last thing we need is for them to have additional reasons to harass & humiliate passengers.

Not to sound religious, but... (1)

DJGrahamJ (589019) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026833)

...AMEN!

If you're not a terrorist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026577)

then show me your bewbs.

When does it stop? (5, Insightful)

trydk (930014) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026601)

... and where?

It has to stop somewhere.

When does the policymakers (and the public) realise that death from terrorism is negligible compared to other (more or less) avoidable causes.

How many lives could be saved in the USA alone by free flu vaccines? How many are killed from gun-related shootings? Traffic deaths? ... Come on, terrorism is hardly noticeable in the big scheme of deaths.

We do not need much airport security, really. Just think about the time, when you could board a plane without being checked, double checked and then frisked. Do not just take my word for it, Bruce Schneier has mentioned it several times, including here [randomhouse.com] .

Re:When does it stop? (3, Funny)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026701)

How many are killed from gun-related shootings?

As offset by the non-gun-related shootings? I really don't know. I'll have to investigate that.

Re:When does it stop? (5, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026773)

Amen brother;

I was recently watching the news, and they were showing how children are being killed in record numbers by gun violence in Chicago.

And the reporter asked "If these deaths were caused by the swine flu, the media, government, and the public would be be all over it. But because it's just urban violence, nobody cares about these deaths."

It seems to me that this country has it's priorities backwards. NOT ok to have 2 people die of Swine Flu, but OK for 30 kids to die from guns. OK for tens of thousands to die from lack of affordable healthcare EVERY YEAR, but billions and trillions spent because 3000 people die from ONE isolated incident of terrorism.

Yeppers, makes me proud to be an American. I'm gonna throw up now.

Couldn't care less... (0, Flamebait)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026623)

if this renders me naked. Another example of how outdated, Christian sensitivities regarding the body are interfering with progress. Make a felony to share the output of one of these scanners and that will curtail any possibility of it showing up online. And if it does...oh noes!!! Life goes on!

Re:Couldn't care less... (4, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026807)

I think Christian sensitivities have little to do with it. No one wants a picture of their 2" schlong, or evidence they're on the rag plastered all over the internet.

It doesn't matter if it's a felony, once it's out there, it's there forever. Imagine if we had evidence that Dick Cheney was as poorly named as we suspect?

No I think the question we're all wondering is "why is this necessary". As invasive as that is, if you have a vested interest in defeating it, you could do so. The only people who are violated are the ones who aren't doing anything wrong.

A small victory (1)

hamburgler007 (1420537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026651)

Perhaps congresses irrational fear of anything sexual will be a good thing in this case. Not to encourage their fears, but I will take any victory for liberty, however small it is.

If this meant I didn't have to take off my shoes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026753)

I would be all for it.

Bonus points (5, Funny)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026781)

Bonus points to the first person who goes through the millimeter wave scanner at the airport and:
-wears the biggest strap-on possible
-writes "fuck you", etc. in metallic-fleck paint across their chest
-gets a call from a TSA screener after writing their phone number on their private parts
-sends a screener running screaming from the room without doing anything in particular other than going through the scanner

There is a bigger problem (4, Interesting)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026823)

Have you ever spent any time at a shopping mall looking at people and trying to imagine them without any clothes? I mean every single one of them, not just the hot ones. Now, imagine what it would be like to operate one of these scanners at an airport. I expect the mental health claims for screeners to go up like a homesick angel. Seventy-year-old people going commando, the business man in the penis pouch, shemales, the list of things I would not want to see goes far beyond the overweight.

This needs to make it to nightclubs (3, Funny)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026865)

I'm disappointed that millimeter wave scanning and Z-backscatter hasn't yet made it to nightclubs. Security there can be more intrusive than at airports. Nightclub goons actually pat you down, which TSA doesn't do.

It would be fun to have the scans of people coming in on monitors around the club. Wny not? The clubbing crowd isn't that modest.

Naked people! (4, Funny)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 5 years ago | (#28026887)

What a surprise that the first link to be slashdotted is the one purporting to contain pictures of naked people.

Personally, I didn't click on that link at all.

Anatomy itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28026959)

There's a good reason why I don't want my body scanned in this way. If someone reveals what's under MY clothes, it could get me killed. Nuff said?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...