×

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!

Airport Scanners Can Store and Transmit Images

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the naked-truth dept.

Government 350

CNN is reporting on findings from a Freedom of Information request initiated by the Electronic Privacy Information Center that has revealed that, contrary to public statements by the Transportation Security Agency, full-body scanners can store and transmit images. "In the [FOIA] documents, obtained by the privacy group and provided to CNN, the TSA specifies that the body scanners it purchases must have the ability to store and send images when in 'test mode.' ... 'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

350 comments

... So? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731294)

What's the big deal? I can think of better places to get porn.

No duh (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731296)

The picture they show in every article about the things must have come from somewhere.

Re:No duh (1)

skylerweaver (997332) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731544)

I can't wait for www.celebrityairportscannerpics.com

I mean, they all travel sometime ;)

Re:No duh (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731676)

That could end up like that guy who sold "celebrity" poo on eBay. Sure, they say it's a picture of Jessica Alba in a terahertz wave machine, but really it's just some random guy's crap in a plastic bag. You know?

Re:No duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731694)

Exactly. I couldn't care less if people want to scan me with this thing. About all you can tell is, "that person is skinny" or "that person is fat" or "that person is about normal". Nothing that anyone should really worry about.

Re:No duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731752)

Bullshit.

amusing (3, Insightful)

kharchenko (303729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731312)

The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

Re:amusing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731360)

I'd be more concerned about the explosives getting through the scanners if I was actually afraid of getting blown up in a plane (or having an exploding plane fall on my head). Even if we'd had a few more successful attempts at pulling that off, I still wouldn't be afraid. You are STILL far more likely to get in an accident in your car on the way to the airport than having a terrorist strike your plane. On the other hand, EVERYONE has to deal with all these layers of asinine security.

Re:amusing (2, Insightful)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731386)

I'm concerned about both. I'm not ashamed of my body but that doesn't mean I want a complete stranger looking at a picture of me naked, no matter how fuzzy.

Re:amusing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731520)

So then you will never get an x-ray or a mammogram, which are transmitted over a network and by law are stored for years.

Re:amusing (1)

dscaife (1230360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731538)

There is a line that I draw somewhere between privacy and doing what's necessary in the interests of security, and this solution is on the wrong side of that line by a mile. If their security strategy requires rendering my body sans clothing, they aren't doing their job properly.

Re:amusing (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30732068)

How do you know that hasn't already been done? Sony used to sell a video camera with low light enhancement that saw through light weight clothes. you just never know what technology is already on the market can do.

Re:amusing (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731392)

Re:amusing (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731400)

The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

It isn't that fuzzy. I've been seeing reports on the wires about the scanner being refined enough to see male genitalia. These scanners won't last long. I bet one day, if they're put in place, we'll see web sites with some actor's dick showing or some other actress' tits in full view or some politicians little pee-pee and we'll see things change real fast.

As far as chemical scanners are concerned, I don't really care. What scares me is driving on the road because I know that the odds are I'm going to get creamed by some dumbass tailgating in his SUV or t-boning me like this cunt on a cell phone did to my wife.

Nope, terrorism isn't a worry of mine - there are about a thousand more things that will take me out way before terrorism. Then again, I'm not a typical American.

Re:amusing (1)

sacdelta (135513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731656)

It's more likely that they will recreate the elite program to allow celebrities and politicians to bypass the scanners.

I'm much more concerned that they do checks to make sure the people operating the machines aren't pedophiles.

Re:amusing (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731404)

It's not a fuzzy picture. It shows all dense objects in acute detail projected on large screens.

Re:amusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731680)

Don't forget, "dense objects" includes a man's penis and scrotum, and a woman's labia and breasts.

Re:amusing (4, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731450)

It's not the fact that someone sees me naked, it's about the fact that I want my damn privacy. I have yet to see the first terrorist ask me to strip naked. Yet apparently when the first goverment-official tells me he wants to have a look at my dick that I have to comply! One thing is sure. I have lost 0% safety and privacy to terrorist. But I lost 100% safety and privacy to goverments the last 20 years. And I bet this goes for 99.9% of the people in the western world. It has to stop you know...

Re:amusing (5, Insightful)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731628)

Exactly! I'm so sick and tired of people saying "if you have nothing to hide why whine?" or "you must have a small penis if you're so concerned with body scanners".
It's just none of their damn business and we've given the terrorists EXACTLY what they wanted, mass paranoia and giving up our freedoms for "the war on terrorism".

Add to this the fact that in a moment of hysteria the airport that let the Nigerian through (Schiphol) ordered 60 of the WRONG bodyscanners which would not be able to detect the kind of "bomb" the Nigerian was carying http://www.depers.nl/binnenland/366577/Verkeerde-bodyscanners-besteld.html [depers.nl] (source in Dutch, since Schiphol is in the Netherlands).
They are ordering the same bodyscanners in the US but possibly with the addition of x-ray scanners that are able to find anal insertions, I'm guessing these will only be used in case of doubt but are likely to be bad for your health (I have no idea to what extend).

Police in the Netherlands is already talking, and set aside money for research, about a mobile bodyscanner.
I'm wondering what the next step will be, body scanners before I enter the bus or train?
Body scanners when I enter the university?

Re:amusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30732000)

Body scanners when I enter the university?

For fuck's sake YES! That would be a dream job for collecting college girl porn!!! I'm so glad this is the home of the brave!

Re:amusing (1)

xmundt (415364) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731634)

Greetings and Salutations...
          this concept of privacy is addressed in another posting to /....and I will read it later. In any case, I am right with you, in that I value my privacy and do not like having ANYONE staring over my shoulder all the time. I am older than dirt, so I recall that the only class of people that were under 24/7 observation were high-security prisoners, and, frankly, I have no desire to join (or be dragged into) that class.

Re:amusing (3, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731710)

I dunno, the rate we're going people won't realize they're prisoners until they've put the bars up in their own homes.

Re:amusing (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731852)

As long as we can keep our guns in it, said house would be a castle no matter how many bars we have to put up to keep the social decay out.

Re:amusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30732032)

Everyone can opt for a pat down. I will not go through any x-ray.. they may cause cancer. Pat me down.

I thought the stimulus package had a "buy American" clause. These machines are made in two places... California... but they use Chinese guts.. the most expensive parts of the $100,000 machines... the other mfg is overseas. If we spend stimulus money overseas.. how will it stimulate us?

Re:amusing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731460)

The "fuzzy resemblance" of a body has little to do with anything. People who would just as soon walk naked on the beach have serious concerns about what amounts to no less than a strip search with not even so much as reasonable suspicion.

This is the most invasive government search, justified by less than the smallest legally acceptable standard of criminal suspicion. The reason strip searches are so narrowly confined has less to do with dignity or moral discomfort at being handled by a police officer than with the incredible invasiveness of the procedure. There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."

The government simply should not be empowered to demand this of its citizens with no basis whatsoever. Without these protections, what is the point of having gradations in police voluntary contact vs. detention vs. arrest? Why limit searches based only on reasonable suspicion to immediate surroundings and officer safety searches?

If some sub-police TSA agent can give you a digital strip search merely for wanting to fly from Chicago to New York, then there's nothing stopping them from rifling through your shopping bags in your locked trunk when you roll through a stop sign; there's nothing to stop them from a "harmless" invasion into your hard drive because there's an infinitesimal possibility there might be some terrorist information in there.

The line has been crossed with warrantless wiretapping, suspicionless searches, and generally unnecessary, unproductive, and invasive government behavior. If naked pictures of air travelers is the straw that breaks the camel's back, so be it. At least they've finally noticed that something's rotten in the state of wherever-you-are.

Re:amusing (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731566)

This is the most invasive government search

Well, the 2nd most. The most invasive search requires rubber gloves.

Re:amusing (3, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731798)

There's quite a difference between being comfortable with your body and enjoying nude beaches...and the government telling you "strip down, you're not trusted and have no rights."

I agree with you generally, but I think there is still another side to this whole thing, which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies. Like yes, I have the freedom of speech, but if someone in the House of Representatives decides to run toward the President during the state of the Union yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" then you'd better bet he's going to be detained for a little while. There's the issue of context, and these rights are still subject to reason. Likewise there have been court decisions, I believe, that school administrators can search student lockers without probable cause-- or at least that the standard of probable cause needed is quite a bit lower.

So given this issue of context, I would say that airports are already situations where we endure a lower expectation of privacy than elsewhere. I don't know if that's a legally appropriate way of saying it, but what I mean is, we already essentially allow our bags to be searched at airports. If a police officer stopped me randomly on the street and asked to look in my bag, I'd say no. If the same police officer asks to look in the same bag when I'm going through security at an airport, I'll agree. When I showed up to the airport that day, I knew ahead of time that I'd have to allow my bags to be searched (or at least viewed through an xray machine). Likewise when I pass over the border from another country, I know that I'll be expected to have a passport. If a police officer asked me for my papers while I was just walking down the street, that would seem far more sinister to me. I've also emptied my pockets, walked through a metal detector, and allowed myself to be pat down at an airport. I wouldn't approve of police doing that randomly on the streets.

So looking at it that way, I can't quite decide whether these scanners are going too far. I suppose if the consensus is that you feel like you've been stripped of your dignity by being asked to step into one, then it probably is too far. However, I think I wouldn't really feel worse for being scanned than I feel for being asked to take my shoes off. Maybe that's just a mental defect on my part.

Won't somebody think of the children??!!! (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731938)

"I agree with you generally, but I think there is still another side to this whole thing, which is that your rights are not quite as absolute as our talking about that sometimes implies."

So unless you would argue that consistency is not a good thing, clearly you think we should be doing this at every public place where a terrorist could conceivably attack. Your fine with putting these up at elementary schools and subjecting your children to this kind of security theatre, for example, correct?

Re:amusing (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731482)

The paranoia that someone may see a fuzzy resemblance of your actual body seems to have no bounds in the US. You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

A large part of our objection is due to that second part exactly: it's TSA, operator error and general incompetence will likely preclude it actually being effective. It would be objectionable enough even if it would actually increase our safety, but it's not going to do that.

What it's going to be used for primarily is to catch more drug smugglers. I don't give a flying fuck about that goal, I definitely am not willing to sacrifice more privacy, the waste of all that taxpayer money, or the hassle of even longer lines. No.

In fact I think it's more likely that this will be counterproductive by making longer lines. Fairly often, the lines to go through the scanners have more people than are actually on a plane. That bombers aren't targeting those lines is a real testament to how stupid TSA and terrorists are, it's only a matter of time before they realize this. I'd prefer security checkpoints be faster so fewer people are in the real danger zone when they do.

Re:amusing (1)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731982)

Do drug smugglers use airline smuggling anymore? I presumed the majority was moved in larger quantities across the border these days.

Credit where credit is due... (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731492)

I am very worried that they might be able to preserve a fuzzy resemblance of my body after I go through an airport scanner. I devote a lot of effort to man-scrapping, and I would appreciate it if they would at least use good enough quality equipment to show off my efforts...

Re:amusing (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731642)

You'd think people would be more worried that the chemical scanners used in airports fail to detect most explosives, but no ...

Considering we've seen WAY more cases of TSA malfeasance than we have seen terrorist attacks, is it really so surprising?

Just you watch - we'll see a new kind of pr0n from the pervs who brought us "up-skirt" - scanner pr0n.

Furthermore, these machines are obsolete before they are even deployed - they only see through clothing, not through the body and we've already had one case of an "ass bomber" in Abdullah Hassan Taleh al-Asiri this past september in Saudi Arabia. And while he mostly succeeding in killing only himself with little harm to others, that's because he detonated it in his ass. Even the underwear bomber spent 20 minutes in the lavatory getting ready - nothing to stop someone from taking the bomb out of their ass before detonating it on a plane. Get three or four of these guys on a plane and that's lot of bomb material sailing right past the latest billion dollars boondoggle.

Personally, I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb, detonators in the balls of course. The TSA will just let him pass as they will be shocked and awed by the size of his tool, not realizing who he's really going to use that tool to fuck over.

Re:amusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731682)

Personally, I'm waiting for the schlong-bomb. Some poor schlub gets castrated and then fitted with a horse-sized prosthetic full of bomb, detonators in the balls of course. The TSA will just let him pass as they will be shocked and awed by the size of his tool, not realizing who he's really going to use that tool to fuck over.

And in response, the TSA will mandate fluffers for all male passengers.
If you can't get it up to prove its a real, then you can't fly...

Re:amusing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731708)

You know when I hear about all this airport security I think back to some of the incidents here such as when the confused irate and mentally disturbed young men attacked children in our colleges. None of these billions in extra security measures had any impact on this, and the more I read these things the more I wonder how effective they will be at preventing these types of attacks. But I don't have to wonder much as I know the answer is they won't. Think about what happened in India, where groups of armed men hit the city and randomly killed people. How long are we away from something like that happening here in our homeland? Are we really naive enough to think that we are somehow outsmarting the terrorists and not understanding that if they really wanted to, how easily they could attack a nightclub like in Israel, or some other place full of innocents?

Personally I think our paranoia in the government is well warranted. When a government constantly promises things it can't deliver on, or does things that it says are safe, but later we find out are neither safe nor do they provide the security that was promised, mistrust becomes common. Besides, after hearing stories of young children in juvenile facilities - that are supposed to be protected - being abused, how many of us truly believe abuses of millions of naked images including those of youth will not occur? What about the stories of how all this security is supposed to protect us when it doesn't?

The more I read these things the more I'm worried, but not in the scared lets give away every ounce of freedom for protection worried, but more of the how much longer are we going to persist with policies that assist in the creation of more desperate people who would rather die in a violent explosion, than live in our colonies.

I hope nobody takes my comments out of context. I understand how difficult some of these decisions are and I know there can be no easy answer. However, I am praying that people pay more attention to these things and our elected officials make sure that these investments are really investments to provide security for us and our children and not for their financial interests.

dogs (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731790)

Bomb sniffing dogs are actually more effective than xrays at detecting bombs and vastly cheaper. We don't use them much mostly because dog trainers don't hire big shot lobbyists.

If you're a frequent traveller, you should occasionally request a personal screening because these airport xray machines give you about 1/8th your yearly xray limit.

Re:amusing (3, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731854)

As I get older my body is naturally getting fuzzier. If the scanner adds more fuzz the TSA will simply view me as a giant hairball.

Re:amusing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731958)

That's not the point, the point is that they deliberately lied to the public about the machine not being able to store images, they got caught and now they are (doubtless) lying again when they say there is "no way" to put the machine into test mode outside of TSA "test centers".

So? (5, Insightful)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731314)

It doesn't matter, and nothing we think on this subject matters anyway.

Re:So? (2, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731350)

Sadly, that seems to be pretty much true. If the fact that they won't actually prevent anything (because they can't scan inside body cavities), can cause DNA damage (by unzipping DNA strands), and are a major privacy violation isn't enough to prevent this multi-billion-dollar waste of taxpayer dollars from happening, nothing we can possibly say or do will prevent it, either. The only way this will stop is if we can convince enough people to stop flying. If these things went in and suddenly people said "screw you" and stopped flying, the airlines would push back on the government and this bullshit would stop. Until it hits the airlines in their pocketbooks---and hard---we will continue to see more and more of this invasive crap happening; the only thing that can stop it is public backlash sufficient to cause people to refuse to fly.

Of course it's possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731340)

How else were the demonstration scans shown in media articles made?

Funny you ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731374)

Why yes officer, my balls really are that big. Why do you ask?

Re:Funny you ask... (2, Funny)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731704)

Suddenly, I understand how this works.

"Nope, he hasn't got the balls to hijack a plane."

Re:Funny you ask... (1)

jobst (955157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731970)

if you got balls THAT big you don't want to hijack planes but rather all the girls on that plane ;-)

Deja vu all over again (2, Funny)

daknapp (156051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731380)

Wow, what a surprise! Just like electronic voting machines, I'm absolutely certain they are invulnerable to hacking.

you iNnsensitive clod! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731394)

or chair, return get how people can with procees and

Check the redactions (5, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731402)

Further analysis of the documents finds some improperly-redacted material indicating that the test mode can in fact be entered with a sequence on the control panel, to wit "UP UP DOWN DOWN LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT B A START".

Good enough for government work (5, Insightful)

ebonum (830686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731422)

"cannot be hacked"
This should be a massive red flag. The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.

"employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal"

Hmmm. So when pushed, they admit that security is ensured by the fact that the government employees are going to behave. Just like those Blackwater guys?

I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things. Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.

Re:Good enough for government work (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731572)

He's saying they can't be hacked because they aren't on a network (like the Battlestar Galactica). But the images are viewed at a remote location, and the data has to be transmitted somehow. So of course they can be hacked. Even if it weren't so, someone could simply take a picture of the viewing screen with a digital camera.

Re:Good enough for government work (4, Interesting)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731750)

Actually, this would be a great application for that Van Eck idea. Everyone's always playing with their wifi doodads at airports, no one will notice someone setting up an odd "wifi" antenna that just happens to capture the images on the security guy's monitor. Heck, maybe his flight is late in the day, he could be there for hours.

Re:Good enough for government work (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731686)

"cannot be hacked" This should be a massive red flag...I would be temped to get a job with the TSA just to get a chance to hack these things. Plus, working with a partner, you could easily get high value images of celebrities.

Ah, sorry, but you couldn't pay me enough to sit in front of one of these things for even five minutes. After seeing the 457th lard-ass waddle their way through the scanner, I'd likely be puking too hard to care about hacking. I'm betting those images would make a Gynecologists office in a retirement community look like Playboy by comparison.

Re:Good enough for government work (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731722)

the wireless ability is probably an expansion card that's removed after testing/servicing. so unhackable in that instance is correct.

All the fuss is really about women who don't want slack jawed TSA agents gawking at their naked image. i can well imagine them creating walls of fame as actors etc go through these machines and they take a snap shot of the screen with their phones.

one solution would be to make all the operators female, even that isn't a perfect solution. really i question the cost effectiveness of this whole fiasco. this isn't going to stop some terrorist smuggling a bomb on a plane that he's shoved up his arse is it?

Re:Good enough for government work (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30732024)

"cannot be hacked"
This should be a massive red flag. The is the same as stating to the world, I'm unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about.

It does to us, but this is the TSA. They have a blank check. The money isn't theirs. They want to make it look like they're doing a job, one that they've never been capable of doing. Saying "This can't be hacked" makes them think "Oh good, something else not to worry about, buy it now!"

Not answering is an answer (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731438)

'There is no way for someone in the airport environment to put the machine into the test mode,' [an anonymous] official said, adding that test mode can be enabled only in TSA test facilities. But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.

Leaving aside the idea of whether we really should care or not...

By not answering, I think this official made the answer pretty obvious. Basically it's analogous to the RFID passport issue. When they say "it can only be done under these specific circumstances", they're simply leaving off the lead-in phrase "Our policy is clear - ". The erstwhile "restriction" is political, not technical.

I imagine it won't be too long before some enterprising TSA employee - or a hacker - puts up a website with surreptitious photographs of cute women alongside their full-body scan images.

Your question is answered.. (1)

cortesoft (1150075) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731440)

But the official declined to say whether activating test mode requires additional hardware, software or simply additional knowledge of how the machines operate.

The official's reluctance to provide additional information on what is required to put it into test mode pretty much gives you your answer; you just need more information on how it works in order to put it in test mode.

Dignity is an essential human right. (5, Insightful)

$beirdo (318326) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731496)

Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.

We are all endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right not to be examined nude en masse by the government when we travel.

Dignity is an essential human right. How dare we sacrifice it to terror?

Freedom? Yeah, right!

Re:Dignity is an essential human right. (1)

Game_Ender (815505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731550)

If they could do a non-invasive brain and interior body scan to determine if you had explosives surgically implanted or were thinking about committing a terrorist attack they would, and there would be people cheering them on.

Re:Dignity is an essential human right. (1)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731608)

Just imagine some TSA creeps snickering at an image of your girlfriend's, your father's or your mother's naked body.

You know, I was kind of annoyed by the concept until you put it just as you did. I imagined it. I didn't care.

I've realized that I don't care about some "TSA creep" snickering about my body, or anything else of mine, or anyone else's body for that matter. By definition of their being a "creep" their opinion is irrelevant to me. Can they match person X with their image? Doubtful, but probably possible. But even then, there is nothing stopping anyone from [i]claiming[/i] a vague or doctored image corresponds to me either.

I'd much rather have them view me remotely in ever intimate detail than lay their hands on me or my possessions. I can't control what someone does with their eyes. Touching me and my possessions is the [i]real[/i] invasion, IMO.

If these scanners speed up the pointless, arbitrary and farcical "security" line, that is a win for dignity right there. Forcing me, a peaceful, law-abiding adult to queue up like livestock and waste my time are two more [i]tangible[/i] indignities that I would gladly trade for the chance that some loser might get a thrill out of my body scan.

Re:Dignity is an essential human right. (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30732058)

"I've realized that I don't care about some "TSA creep" snickering about my body, or anything else of mine, or anyone else's body for that matter."

Why didn't the TSA official explain it to me that way in the first place?

Reporter: Mr. TSA official, shouldn't we be concerned about privacy issues?

TSA Official: Well, we thought so at first, but then we checked with some guy on Slashdot whose SlashID describes his dogs breath after he gets a blowjob and realized that it's not something anybody should care about ...

Thanks for setting me straight on the issue.

Re:Dignity is an essential human right. (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731766)

Snickering?

When my wife goes through there, they'll be dropping to their kness, chanting, "We're not worthy! We're not worthy!"

Re:Dignity is an essential human right. (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731864)

If dignity were an essential human right, the free market would have already put a price on it. As this has not happened, we must conclude "dignity" is a liberal myth.

Invisibility Cloak (2, Funny)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731508)

Need a shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body so when you step into the scanner, they only see a head and shoes.

Add: A fluctuating Eye of Sauron where your chest would be that the x-rays can see.

Re:Invisibility Cloak (2, Funny)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731630)

Unfortunately, the Eye of Sauron is a prohibited explosive device - all you need to do to set it off is have some hobbit somewhere to throw a magic ring into a volcano.

Duh. (5, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731514)

They probably record every single image generated by those things, and hold it at least until the passenger's flight is over. I don't see why they would do it any other way. It flies in the face of reason. I know they say otherwise, but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public. It's for the greater good, right?

Re:Duh. (2, Funny)

The TSA (1718764) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731796)

They probably record every single image generated by those things, and hold it at least until the passenger's flight is over. I don't see why they would do it any other way. It flies in the face of reason. I know they say otherwise, but I doubt they feel bad about lying to the general public. It's for the greater good, right?

The TSA does not lie to the general public, never has, never will. You, on the other hand, are an inch shorter than stated on your job application form and may continue to shrink, should you fail to retract your statement.

We *should* Store Images (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731530)

For actual security purposes it would make sense to store images and network the machines. That way after the fact if there is a security lapse they can review someone's scan to see what was missed.

Cool! (3, Funny)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731534)

They can add value by auto-updating everyone's FaceBook page with the latest scan and the new status 'clean'/'hilarious'/'needs liposuction'/'tumescent'/'en route to Gitmo' etc.

Re:Cool! (1)

The TSA (1718764) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731928)

They can add value by auto-updating everyone's FaceBook page with the latest scan and the new status 'clean'/'hilarious'/'needs liposuction'/'tumescent'/'en route to Gitmo' etc.

That is a really good idea! As soon as we implement it, we'll give you a call to help us test it. Imagine how surprised your family and friends will be when they see your status change to 'en route to Gitmo'!

With fire. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731560)

I'm waiting for someone to have the balls to tag this article as 'killitwithfire'. I wonder how fast the FBI would be knocking on (down) the door...

Hey, can I borrow your cameraphone for a moment? (3, Insightful)

chiph (523845) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731564)

Got a real hot babe going thru the scanner here.
- TSA Perv

Guy scanning is the only sane one (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731570)

Do you see what some people wear through airports? Really stereotyping their destinations in crazy Hawaiian shirts. At least the guy watching the body scan images sees them as human.

great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731602)

I have a really good idea, why dont they just put you in a straight jacket and strap you into your seat so when you get on the plane so there is no reason to consider you or anyone a threat. no more long security check lines!

quasi naked pictures of your children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731626)

quasi naked pictures of your children. can anyone say child pornography.

Test mode is enabled ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731660)

... automatically when the equipment detects the presence of a particularly well-endowed female.

hmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731668)

I think you can forget getting the Olympic Games for the next..well..forever?

Putting scanners in US airports... (2, Insightful)

doomy (7461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731696)

How does this stop terrorists who board plans elsewhere and come here (with the thought of blowing up the plane?). These scanners need to be where a terrorist is most likely to board a plane. Thus a push for having them in international airports all over the world would be a much better plan than having them all over the US including tiny domestic airports.

privacy (1)

MrBrainport (1637275) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731744)

In 10 years everybody can buy cheap "sunglass" with similar functionality, so if you like privacy then it's indeed time to invest in shirt and pants that route x-rays around the body :-)

Like BIG celebrities are going to use this. (3, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731758)

C'mon now, all this talk about celebrities and hacking those "high-profile" images. Please. Most celebrities don't bother with this now.

Let's see, I'm a celebrity making millions. Do I A) Pay $1000 to fly first-class on a public airline and risk my career being ruined by a horny airport scanner operator stealing my "naked" image, or B) Realize I have enough "ah, fuck it" money lying around to lease my own NetJet where I don't have to deal with the bullshit of either scanners or the pubic.

Some can, some can't (1)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731902)

Not all celebrities can afford private jets. Lots of important and famous people do fly in first class.

can't be hacked (1)

barry99705 (895337) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731774)

"Further, the TSA says, the machines are not networked and cannot be hacked." That's what they said about the voting machines too.

Problem Solved (3, Funny)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731808)

just fly naked. If they don't like it, you can claim it's a security related measure.

Re:Problem Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30731918)

You realize that they will still need to anal probe you at the very least ?

No crap! (3, Insightful)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 4 years ago | (#30731882)

Say you catch a guy with something and they have a trial. And the judge asks for the evidence to be presented. Well. Yeah they need a copy of that in initial scan.

You don't even have to watch Law and Order to know that shit.

That settles it for me (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30732002)

I was initially ambivalent about scanners and pretty much said, "hey, it's not like they're storing the images." Test Mode my ass. If they have the ability, they are using the ability. Next, we'll hear about machines "accidentally" left in test mode during real-world usage. There is absolutely no reason to store these images.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...