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!

Denials Aside, Feds Storing Body Scan Images

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the we-are-neither-amused-nor-surprised dept.

Privacy 560

The new generation of body scanners employed at airports (and many other places) can record detailed, anatomically revealing pictures of each person scanned, which is one reason they've raised the hackles of privacy advocates as well as ordinary travelers. Now, AHuxley writes "The US Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer that 'scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.' It turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images. The US Marshals Service admitted that it had saved ~35,314 images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse. The images were stored on a Brijot Gen2 machine. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction to stop the TSA's body scanning program."

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

Please read this!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139184)

Slashdot please help me!!! I need to know if it's gay or not if I let a guy fuck me in the ass. I didn't kiss him, suck him off or let our balls touch so was it gay or not?

BTW Rob Malda has a tiny penis.

Re:Please read this!!! (-1, Troll)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139506)

Slashdot please help me!!! I need to know if it's gay or not if I let a guy fuck me in the ass. I didn't kiss him, suck him off or let our balls touch so was it gay or not?

The only advice I can give you on this is to ask your boss. You should give him a full demonstration, preferably in a conference room full of his boss, his boss' boss, etc. I'm sure they'll be able to help you define this activity much better than we can here at /.

Of course they can (5, Insightful)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139186)

All that needs to be said here is that we are dealing with a software-driven platform.

Re:Of course they can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139266)

Yeah, exactly. Mod parent up for a concise point. Once you have a computer to control the scanner mechanism and digitize the scans, everything is up in the ether. Even if the software weren't currently written to store images, if it gets on the screen, you have a bitmap right there and just have to write it to a file. Making that modification might take a few man-hours for a system that probably took dozens of man-years to create in the first place. Not hard to replace an EXE file.
 
The government knows how easy it is to make changes like this. They were just using the argument that the images wouldn't be stored as a lubricant to make the insertion a little easier. Or a bait-and-switch if you want to look at it that way.

Alt-Print Screen (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139348)

currently written to store images, if it gets on the screen, you have a bitmap right there and just have to write it to a file. Making that modification might take a few man-hours for a system that probably took dozens of man-years to create in the first place.

Doesn't even take any modification. Alt-Print Screen, paste into image software, click save, post on internet, ????, profit.

Re:Of course they can (5, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139666)

You know what happens when we lie about our business activities? We get them taken away.

If the Feds are going to lie to the American Public about fundamental, important tennants of their new airport security theater, then we should take their toys away. "I'm sorry, you needed what? You should have thought about that before you lied about it."

Of course the naked photos will never leak. Wait, that's first thing [thereporteronline.com] that happened. Well, the public seems comfortable with the idea. Wait, even DUBAI [dailytelegraph.com.au] banned them as intrusive.

Re:Of course they can (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139494)

And as such, this was inevitable. Did anyone honestly think that our government could have any technology without eventually using it to its maximum potential? First, they say that it doesn't really look like they're seeing you nude. Then upon proof that they're lying, they say that it can't store the pictures. Now that there's proof that this isn't true, either, they'll say that the images are only being stored for diagnostic and training purposes.

Then, when the "Girls Gone Wild JFK Airport Style" video comes out, they'll say that all those people signed release forms. Then, when someone sues because she didn't, they'll pay her off to sweep it under the rug.

This is one of those cases where the slippery slope is almost inevitable. You have a technology that invades the privacy of people so completely that its abuse is almost unavoidable. Abuse was practically designed into the system. Trying to keep such a system from being abused is like trying to teach a jaguar to be a house cat. Doubly so when that system is in the hands of government agencies that are rarely held accountable by the general public. Triply so when even a cell phone camera is sufficient to abuse the system to horrifying ends. Quadruply so when you're talking about nudie pics.

Inevitable.

wrist post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139188)

n/t

Damn that EVIL George W. Bush!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139208)

Oh, wait.

Electronic Privacy Information Center (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139218)

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction to stop the TSA's body scanning program.

And when that doesn't work, EPIC failed!

Re:Electronic Privacy Information Center (1)

Panspechi (948400) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139238)

Is this a dream, or Total Recall?

Does not violate the Fourth Amendment? (5, Insightful)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139546)

From the article:

"For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: 'The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events.'"

Since when did the Fourth Amendment provide exemptions for "the end justifies the means" situations? (Which is a separate argument altogether).

To claim that an effective strip search without probable cause, hot pursuit, or arrest is in any way not a violation of the Fourth Amendment is a bold and likely incorrect point of view. The issue of consent is probably a critical issue here. Perhaps one doesn't have to travel by air; but when the issue may be to lose one's job for refusing to complete a business trip, perhaps then defaulting on a mortgage, & etc, or to "consent" to a millimeter wave search... That sounds more like extortion.

Not to say that the Constitution has never been violated before, but let us not deceive ourselves as to what we are doing.

Re:Does not violate the Fourth Amendment? (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139786)

Perhaps one doesn't have to travel by air

It doesn't matter. When the government says "You must waive your rights to participate in any activity which you don't have the explicit constitutional right to participate in", it has violated your rights. The extent of the violation is more or less depending on how common or important the activities are; for air travel it's pretty darned high, though not as high as for surface travel.

Re:Electronic Privacy Information Center (1)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139630)

Is that TSA or TnA ?

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Please try the veal, it's great....

It's Obvious (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139226)

it had saved ~35,314 images recorded with a millimeter wave system

It's all the young, beautiful 16 to 19 1/2 year-old females who are all alone and need protection from the strong DHS.

Re:It's Obvious (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139296)

DHS has a cut-off age of 20? Damn picky, aren't they.

Re:It's Obvious (2, Funny)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139326)

They aren't much into grannies.

Re:It's Obvious (4, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139416)

Grannies, fine. But no MILFs? Straight to jail-bait? What is WRONG with these people!? Oh, wait. [boston.com]

Re:It's Obvious (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139462)

Whoosh?

Pics or it didn't happen (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139230)

Get some enterprising hacker to release those 30k pics. If some schoolkids visited the courthouse, we'll see which is stronger: "think of the children!" or "think of the terrists!"

Re:Pics or it didn't happen (5, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139554)

Add in "If you do nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" and you have a new version of "Rock, Paper, Scissors".

Re:Pics or it didn't happen (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139598)

Wikileaks

No Surprise at all (3, Insightful)

LeepII (946831) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139232)

Since the original request for the system included "the ability to store and transmit" said images, this is no surprise. Any computer that has the "Print Screen" button on the keyboard can copy an image. Since the TSA scanned a 12 year old girl, why aren't child pornography charges being brought up on them?

Re:No Surprise at all (4, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139304)

Since the TSA scanned a 12 year old girl, why aren't child pornography charges being brought up on them?

Despite me not agreeing with this program, the "think of the children" scream has no bearing here. Child pornography must be pornographic. Even nude stills that are considered artistic (ie, some of Lewis Caroll's photos he took) are not considered pornography and are perfectly legal. You simply have to prove that the purpose of the image is not for "deviant gratification". In this case, the purpose of the images will be for airport security. End of story. It's the same reason every pediatrician in the country isn't going to jail for molestation. As long as their contact is necessary and professional, then it's allowed.

Re:No Surprise at all (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139424)

It would still be fun if the archive got leaked and we got to see a political cage match between those who see terrorists everywhere and the people who spend all their time thinking about the children.

Re:No Surprise at all (3, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139426)

They claimed over and over that they were not storing the images. The fact that they were storing them clearly indicates that something deviant was occurring.

Re:No Surprise at all (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139564)

Nefarious, sure. Not necessarily deviant. The government stores all sorts of information that they shouldn't. I'd wager that close to zero percent of that misappropriation is about deviant sexual behaviors though. It's more a case of the government loves to store information and data warehouse it. They can link all that and have even more information about the populace. Information is power.

Again, I don't agree with these scanners. IMHO, they're an invasion of privacy. I just think it's entirely hypocritical to trot out the "think of the children" defense as part of our argument against them. 99% of the time when the rest of the whack-job groups shout that mantra against video games, violent movies, regular porn on the internet, or anything else that they have an agenda against, it's not applicable. It's just as unlikely in this case too. Don't reuse arguments that have already been proven so flawed as to be regularly mocked around here.

Re:No Surprise at all (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139592)

Deviant in the sense that it deviates from what they claimed and what the law says they’re allowed to do.

Re:No Surprise at all (2, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139584)

Neither the summary or the article say the TSA are storing images. This story is about the Marshal Service storing images. These two groups are distinct from each other.

Re:No Surprise at all (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139678)

At their own admission the TSA has the capability in their machines. They just claim it isn’t “activated” in the airport scanners. Mhmm. Prove it.

Re:No Surprise at all (2, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139590)

The TSA claimed they're not storing the images, and the U.S. Marshals (at one location) are storing the images. Those aren't the same organization.

Re:No Surprise at all (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139734)

No, but what reason do we have to believe that the TSA is telling the truth when they say that their machines cannot store the images, when the U.S. Marshals are using similar machines and were storing images? Particularly after we already know that “TSA requires AIT machines to have the capability to retain and export imagines only for testing, training, and evaluation purposes” and “[w]hile the equipment has the capability of collecting and storing an image, the image storage functions will be disabled by the manufacturer before the devices are placed in an airport and will not have the capability to be activated by operators.”

Right. Prove it.

Re:No Surprise at all (1, Interesting)

MarkusH (198450) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139450)

What if some agent took the picture of a 12 year old girl home to "enjoy" in his free time? Could he be charged with possession of child pornography then? I'd say yes.

Re:No Surprise at all (3, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139486)

Possibly. It's not a guarantee. If the photo was legal then what he does with it could be viewed as irrelevant. In that case it'd be no more a legal problem than if they were "enjoying" the kids section of the latest JC Penny flyer.

Either way, it's still a "what if" scenario in the end. Until that's proven then the point is moot.

Re:No Surprise at all (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139540)

I’m pretty sure that a basically-nude photograph of someone taken without their consent is pretty much always illegal regardless of their age.

Re:No Surprise at all (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139612)

They're neither photographs nor "basically-nude" in the conventional sense. But regardless, the image is taken with your consent.

Re:No Surprise at all (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139746)

since when can children consent to having nude pictures of themselves taken?

As for adults that might work for airports(if you consider flying to be a choice and such systems do not also get used at bus and rail terminals)since when do people get a choice about going to court?

Re:No Surprise at all (5, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139600)

I was going to try to find some cites to prove you wrong and I went to Google and typed in "naked children pictures enjoying pornographic" and thinking better of it, closed the browser window.

Re:No Surprise at all (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139542)

Just because it's used for sexual gratification doesn't mean it's pornography. Given the fetishes of some people, just about everything could be labled pornography then.

Re:No Surprise at all (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139628)

While your claim is completely true as far as legality goes, there are plenty of incidents that show the system works very differently in practice. Then again, when the government is being charged with the crime and following the letter of the law says innocent, you bet they will be. Double-standards, and all that.

Re:No Surprise at all (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139698)

Since the TSA scanned a 12 year old girl, why aren't child pornography charges being brought up on them?

Despite me not agreeing with this program, the "think of the children" scream has no bearing here. Child pornography must be pornographic. Even nude stills that are considered artistic (ie, some of Lewis Caroll's photos he took) are not considered pornography and are perfectly legal. You simply have to prove that the purpose of the image is not for "deviant gratification". In this case, the purpose of the images will be for airport security. End of story. It's the same reason every pediatrician in the country isn't going to jail for molestation. As long as their contact is necessary and professional, then it's allowed.

Let's not forget you need parental consent to take these 'acceptable' photos. Are the parents signing waviers as they waltz through the scanners?

Re:No Surprise at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139538)

The person being scanned should have a monitor so they can see exactly what the "people in the back room" can see. It simply isn't fair to not know how you are being exposed. These machines probably all have a "remote service connection" that various government agencies can use to see what the scanner is seeing.

I'm confused (4, Insightful)

jmauro (32523) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139236)

The TSA (part of DHS) says their not recording images of people entering the airport, but the US Marshalls (part of DoJ) are.

So folks are suing the TSA? It seems to me that you'd actually want to sue the US Marshalls instead.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139398)

Seriously.

Let me get this straight:

The TSA buys machines, makes sure they don't normally store images, tells people they won't (usually) be storing images, and, as far as we can tell, aren't.

The U.S. Marshals install similar machines in a courthouse, set them up to store images, and tell people "Yeah, we're storing images".

And this chain of events, the TSA is the bad guy? For something the Marshal Service is doing?

WTF? I hate the TSA as much as the next guy, but Jeebus, this is retarded.

Re:I'm confused (3, Interesting)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139468)

In edition the article mentions the Brijot Gen2 machine. All of the TSA ones I've seen are the L-3 communications Provision machine. So DoJ using a different machine from a different company are storing images so they decide to sue a different department that's using different machines with different procedures? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:I'm confused (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139524)

addition*!!! I clicked too fast =/

Re:I'm confused (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139472)

The TSA claimed it was not possible to store the images. They lied.

Re:I'm confused (2, Funny)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139512)

The TSA also uses a different machine.

Re:I'm confused (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139560)

The TSA claimed it was not possible to store the images. They lied.

It isn't even an accidental lie either - their own procurement specifications require the ability to store and transmit copies in real time. Seems like the only thing keeping the machines doing from what the TSA said they "cannot" do is the flip of a switch. Why should we believe they aren't flipping that switch whenever they feel like it? After all they lied about the machines' capabilities, it ain't no big stretch of the imagination to expect them to lie about using that switch.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139622)

The TSA was only talking about the machines that they use. Their statement wasn't all encompassing to all body scanners in use by all federal agencies. You're really having to stretch on that rebuttal.

Re:I'm confused (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139482)

Slight correction: The TSA says they *cannot* store or record images. The U.S. Marshals, apparently using the same equipment, *are* storing images. Ergo, the TSA is lying about the capabilities of the machines, and a lawsuit is being filed to prevent them from being used since we clearly can't trust a word the TSA says. To be honest, the fact that the Marshals provided a case in point is somewhat irrelevant; the TSA claims they can't store images, but according to TFA, they require that they be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." Even though they claim that they are delivered for use with this functionality disabled, examples such as the U.S. Marshals case make this claim dubious, thus the lawsuit.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139646)

The U.S. Marshals, apparently using the same equipment, *are* storing images.

See that's your problem. The Marshals and the TSA aren't using the same equipment. Maybe you should do a little more research (like reading the summary in full) before shooting off?

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139652)

You see, these are now the "Gen2" devices. The first generation only showed pictures. Gen2 devices have a special button that you can press to share the pictures of the hideous obese persons and sexy young women with your workmates and friends. Gen3 will support youtube. Gen4 has 3D imaging.

Re:I'm confused (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139654)

Doesn't the TSA use a different machine? Do they and the Marshals have the machines configured in the same way?

They use the same approach for scanning, not necessarily the same devices. (Actually, the scanners use one of two very different approaches -- backscatter X-ray and millimeter-wave -- that have been lumped into a single category.)

Re:I'm confused (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139692)

Yes. The TSA uses machines from L3 not Brijot.

Re:I'm confused (1)

Kiralan (765796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139498)

My guess would be that if the Marshall's scanner can do it, then the TSA ones can as well. Therefore, sue the TSA, requiring them to show they don't have the capability in their scanners, or that they are not saving the images.

Re:I'm confused (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139530)

Bad summary, separate lawsuit. FTFA:

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.

What Kind of Marker.... (3, Funny)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139258)

So, what kind of marker do I need to purchase to leave a few messages of what I think about the TSA on my special parts next time I go through the airport?

Re:What Kind of Marker.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139284)

Time for some tinfoil underwear!

Re:What Kind of Marker.... (2, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139360)

It would require implanting a metal screw into your hip... next to what looks like a U-bolt

This [tripod.com] should get you flagged for special treatment

Re:What Kind of Marker.... (5, Funny)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139362)

Silver paint pen should do. Remember not to write "the TSA, the" in German, because some people might misunderstand.

Re:What Kind of Marker.... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139568)

Der TSA, der?

:-D

Re:What Kind of Marker.... (1)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139720)

tun Sie nicht Der TSA, der ich Bruder!

Re:What Kind of Marker.... (5, Informative)

bgt421 (1006945) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139658)

This is an epic obscure Simpsons reference. When Sideshow Bob goes before the parole board, they question him about his "Die, Bart, Die" tattoo. He explains it as German, where 'die' is a definite article, and they buy it hook, line, and sinker. Sideshow Bob gets out, and mayhem insues.

Surprising... not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139290)

You mean a government agency that had the ability to do something, regardless if it was right or wrong, did exactly that thing? Wow, colour me surprised!!! Not. This was the most obvious thing in the world. "Oh no sir, we're going to take your photograph here but we're not going to save it!!!" Give me a break. Will the US just have a French style revolution already? It's getting tiring, really.

What do these machines look like? (2, Informative)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139294)

How can I spot one of these machines? How does it differ in appearance from a metal detector?

Re:What do these machines look like? (2, Informative)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139372)

They're much larger and look like a little room/glass-pod/transporter platform you stand in and in most US airports have a big L3 logo on the side. (red circle white text).

Here's the product page from L-3 Communications [l-3com.com] .

Re:What do these machines look like? (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139420)

Correction to more detailed product page with the actual different versions: L-3 Advanced Imaging Tech [l-3com.com]

Re:What do these machines look like? (5, Funny)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139382)

Look for the sweaty pervert manning it.

Re:What do these machines look like? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139588)

If you'd been through one, you'd know it.

You don't walk through as with a metal detector. First, you'll be asked to empty your pockets, not just remove metals.

Then, you'll stand in the scan area, hands over your head, facing sideways while the scan is done.

What I want to know (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139324)

Whose body were they storing when they scanned the images?

Went through one recently (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139342)

I was recently coming off a cruise into the Miami port, and was 'randomly' selected to go through one of these. I'm a young fit woman, not travelling alone, and was not wearing bulky or loose clothing- so why the selection?

Anyway, I expressed upset at the process and the security guard person guiding me through said that only one person sees the image, they can't see me, I can't see them, and that the image is deleted immediately after I am 'passed' through and no weapons are detected.

I doubt even the people operating these things know what's going on.

Re:Went through one recently (3, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139508)

You are not legally obligated to go through one of these if you do not want to. If you refuse to go through this, which essentially amounts to a high-tech strip-search, they have to give you the old-fashioned pat-down.

Re:Went through one recently (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139672)

I'm a young fit woman, not travelling alone, and was not wearing bulky or loose clothing- so why the selection?

Amazing... you managed to ask and answer your own question in the same breath.

Re:Went through one recently (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139738)

I'm a young fit woman . . . so why the selection?

I think, as disturbing as it is, you might have answered your own question...

I feel so dirty... (1)

stakovahflow (1660677) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139344)

Dirty, dirty, dirty...

Well, if they did save the images ... (2, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139364)

... they'll show up at porn sites real soon. You just need one perverted US Marshal with a USB memory stick, the Internet will do the rest.

The US Marshals Service admitted that it had saved ~35,314 images

Wow! That many cute chicks have walked through their scanners?

Re:Well, if they did save the images ... (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139488)

Stand outside of any court house scanner and you'll see: yes, some really attractive women go through that scanner - many of them are attorneys. (I dated a law student years ago and attend grad school near a law school. It amazed me how many really good looking women attended law school)

Now, considering that the only folks who have these scanners are government entities, there would be one hell of a shit storm if they do end up on a porn site. There's probably going to be one anyway - and rightfully so.

Nothing to worry about. (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139390)

I'm sure they are only saving the 'really good ones.'

So there's nothing for any slashdot denizen to worry about.

Not going far enough (2, Interesting)

Psmylie (169236) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139418)

The problem is, we aren't going far enough to protect ourselves. These measures, while a considerable improvement over metal detectors, are still a far cry from what we need if we want to be secure. Here is what I propose:

Upon entering any government building, or attempting to enter an airport terminal, all citizens will directed to secure rooms where they will be required to strip off all of their street clothes. These clothes will then be sent for analasys for any chemical agents, explosives, etc. and burned or disposed of if there are any suspicious substances on them. Visitors/travellers will then be issued a standard robe and slippers, after the invasive strip search and full body x-ray.
At this point, if boarding an aircraft, passengers will be led to their seats and have an I.V. hooked into their arms. They will be kept sedated for the duration of the flight, and then wheeled out while still unconcious to recover in specially designated rooms. If there is a connecting flight, then of course staff will wheel them onto that flight, while still unconcious.
Upon exiting the terminal or government building, citizens will have their personal effects returned to them, minus anything destroyed or detained due to suspicious chemical markers or anti-government slogans or anything else the government feels that it is in the citizen's best interest to remove from their possesion.

I know all of this seems like it might be expensive, but hey, isn't it worth it to be safe?

Re:Not going far enough (1)

Psmylie (169236) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139526)

And now I realize that I have become far too reliant upon spell-checkers: *Analysis, *travelers, *unconscious, *possession. My sincere apologies to anyone who becomes excessively irritated upon seeing misspelled words.

Re:Not going far enough (1)

irondonkey (1137243) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139576)

Stop giving them ideas!

Re:Not going far enough (1)

Psmylie (169236) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139670)

"Stop giving them ideas!"

Aww, c'mon, it will never happen.
...
  *mentally reviews all the things going on now that I thought would never happen ten years ago*
Crap.
Slashdot needs a "delete post" button.

Re:Not going far enough (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139716)

This would apply to "all citizens", which includes folks like Congresscritters and Presidents. I would think the mere thought of having to strip-search, say, John Cornyn or Patrick Leahy would leave even the more perverted security personnel running in the opposite directions.

Re:Not going far enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139676)

Despite how ridiculous it sounds, I would not be entirely surprised to seeing this become close to reality within the next 20 years.

Personally, though strange, I would not be opposed to the robe, slippers, and sedation, assuming all is comfortable and sanitary. It's the future! Why not be a little more spendy?

Re:Not going far enough (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139686)

You may be on to something - this may actually work.

Re:Not going far enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139752)

There are plenty of people out there that would happily comply with something like this.

I'm also confused (3, Insightful)

confu2000 (245635) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139474)

The party involved seems to be the US Marshals at a court house.

The TSA seems to be speaking only for themselves for airports.

Is this Florida court house also an airport? Or located inside an airport?

Am I having a problem with logic or is it the article?

Re:I'm also confused (2, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139766)

Given the number of cops, lawyers and criminals typically found in a court house, it can safely be said that if assholes could fly, that court house would most certainly be classified as an airport.

Posted by AHuxley? (2, Funny)

cpscotti (1032676) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139500)

Shouldn't the poster be GOrwell? Wouldn't it be even more appropriate!

As an aside, not impressed (5, Funny)

Necron69 (35644) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139522)

I had my first millimeter wave radar scan at the Denver airport when traveling last weekend. I thought it was rather interesting, but wasn't impressed by their insistence that I had something in my pockets, until I turned them inside out to show they were empty.

Necron69

Bound to fail due to human nature (1)

BartholomewBernsteyn (1720348) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139572)

Apart from the fact that this whole thing is ethnically ill-conceived, I will never believe it's going to be safe against being exploited in any way. Regardless of whether or not these machines are capable of storing actual images, the operator would always find a way to 'store' body scanner images given enough incentive. Imagine those images surfacing on the web, showing some child, some known celebrity - imagine the lawsuits, imagine the public outcry...

 

The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible...

Yeah, go maximum extend your mom!

Humans will always find a way - This shit is bound to fail simply given the troubled nature of the ordinary human being...

Perjury much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139582)

I distinctly recall some Senate hearings about this in which people were assured this exact things wasn't going to take place. Isn't that considered perjury, or are we picking which laws to enforce again?

Anyone else wanna bet on the time frame for when the zip file containing all those images hits the torrent stream?

nyuck nyuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139604)

I got modded down back when I said that these pedophilia pornoscanners would STORE images PERMANENTLY and probably be "leaked" whenever a candidate for something needs to be embarrassed. If you walk through one of these, you're a moron. If you let your daughter walk through one of these, you're a pedophile-supporting pervert. I wonder how many TSA agents take advantage of some of your daughters' images during their breaks. (or Hell, why wait for a break?)

Say what you will about the Afghani Taliban but somehow I doubt they'd bend over for government molestation pervert scans like YOU. I'd rather have Shariah than an omnipotent God-State.

Re:nyuck nyuck (1)

czarangelus (805501) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139636)

Sry, meant to post under my own name. I'm no coward and I stand by what I say.

Re:nyuck nyuck (0, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139708)

Your rant is nice except that it isn't the TSA doing this nor has anyone shown that the TSA is or has stored images. The complaint is about the Marshal Service who is also using a completely different model of scanner from a completely different company than the TSA uses. But don't let such facts get in the way.

Samples Required (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139696)

Seriously, make the perversion jokes if you must, but I don't think most Americans have any idea what's even being discussed here.

The TSA should allow a small sample, say 5 each male and female, various ages, of un-filtered un-redacted (but anonymous) full-resolution images available for a trusted third party to post on their website. It could be a newspaper, a travel mag, Consumer Reports, whatever, but an unbiased supervisor needs to be responsible for the authenticity.

There's not even enough information available here to have an informed debate, just a few down-sampled 'privacy filtered' press images.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this" secnario (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139702)

This is why when I had to go from Boston to D.C. for business, I took Amtrak.

What's the big deal? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#33139744)

I can't see getting excited about millimeter wave images. Big deal. You get to see the body outline. Compared to Z-backscatter X-ray images [howstuffworks.com] , they don't even show very much.

I'd rather go through a millimeter wave scanner at nightclubs than be pawed by the security goons.

It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33139748)

the TSA pervert could always just copy the image with his cell phone camera.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?