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!

Underwear Invention Protects Privacy At Airport

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the protecting-the-goods dept.

Privacy 325

Thanks to Jeff Buske you don't have to be embarrassed while going through the full body scanners at the airport. Buske has invented radiation shielding underwear for the shy traveler. From the article: "Jeff Buske says his invention uses a powdered metal that protects people's privacy when undergoing medical or security screenings. Buske of Las Vegas, Nev.-Rocky Flats Gear says the underwear's inserts are thin and conform to the body's contours, making it difficult to hide anything beneath them. The mix of tungsten and other metals do not set off metal detectors."

cancel ×

325 comments

Well... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318120)

When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.

Re:Well... (2, Funny)

Blindman (36862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318408)

When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.

More accurately, only the outlaws will wear underwear.

Re:Well... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318458)

So, commandos versus outlaws, then?

Re:Well... (2, Funny)

sakasune (772886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319060)

When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.

More accurately, only the outlaws will wear underwear.

Actually, only outlaws will have obscured genitalia. Also reminds me a Futurama quote where one of the cops said "And unblur your face, too!"

Re:Well... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34319148)

When you obscure genitalia, only the outlaws will have genitalia.

http://failblog.org/2010/11/23/epic-fail-photos-probably-bad-news-tsa-fail/

Suspecious (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318124)

A hell of allot of good that do anyone. Its not like if the TSA sees anything remotely out of the ordinary with the scanner you are not going to then get the pat-down or some other intrusive search as a result.

Re:Suspecious (2, Funny)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318150)

Exactly what I thought. "We can see your junk, better feel around to make sure they're there."

Re:Suspecious (4, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318802)

Everyone's doing this wrong. the TSA will never stop their pat-downs while the public is afraid of being groped, and this anti-screening day supposedly set for tomorrow (sort of a carbon-based DDOS) isn't the solution either. You want to stop the intrusive behavior? Simple.

Grind on the screener's hands while moaning loudly and gyrating your hips. It may not change the official policy, but it will eventually make all the screeners quit.

Well, except maybe the pervy ones.

Re:Suspecious (3, Funny)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319136)

I won't go that far, but I've sent off for the free sample of Extenz, and I'm going to take that before the screening. I'm also thinking about wearing a kilt. I'm hoping they'll ask me if I know what they're going to do so I can say something along the lines of "I've been looking forward to it." Depending on how it goes, I might finish off with a quip like "What, no happy ending?"

Probability that I'll have the balls to go through with it: low

Re:Suspicious (1)

eudas (192703) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318218)

Dave Barry's already gotten that experience.

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131338172/humorist-dave-barry-and-the-tsa [npr.org]

Re:Suspicious (3, Funny)

atisss (1661313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319144)

Haha, why not just read playboy before entering scanner.. that way picture should be clear and solid.

Re:Suspecious (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318242)

The gropedown is what you get if you opt out of the scan. I'm sure that taking a scan and raising an anomaly involves much more vigorous investigation.

Re:Suspecious (5, Informative)

Tryle (1159503) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318336)

Let's get the terminology right here. It's called "gate rape".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gate%20Rape&defid=5365083 [urbandictionary.com]

Re:Suspecious (5, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318696)

That's the questions for the future.
Hello sir, Rape or Radiation?
My wife and I will take radiation; but we are raising our child catholic so ...

Re:Suspecious (3, Funny)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319262)

Hold on a second sir. Let me put on my priest robes...

Re:Suspecious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318436)

you can also be molested even if you are agree to the porno viewer.

Re:Suspecious (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318494)

A hell of allot of good that do anyone. Its not like if the TSA sees anything remotely out of the ordinary with the scanner you are not going to then get the pat-down or some other intrusive search as a result.

Not to worry. It will be all right. These underwear are named after the Rocky Flats [wikipedia.org] nuclear weapons facility. These are the good guys! They're US! And as an extra bonus, they light up at night.

Re:Suspecious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318634)

That's why the underwear needs to create a false image that looks like it is plausible.

Re:Suspecious (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318960)

"Sir, your underwear violates our security protocols. Please step this way for your cavity search."

Might save your gonads from radiation too (1)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318128)

Frisking bad as it is, is unlikely to give you cancer, deform your eggs/sperm, or sterilize you. So there's that.

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (4, Funny)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318158)

I don't know, the government has assured me that there is no risk of any of that stuff...

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318642)

It's a shame that one cannot Air Brush ones underwear with it. One could write notices like, "Tell Mama that Daddy says Hi."

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (2, Funny)

meddle99 (1946010) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319142)

I would paint some really big junk on my undies...

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318418)

If X-ray backscatter machines could sterilize you, you'd be sterile ten times over already from background radiation.

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318572)

If X-ray backscatter machines could sterilize you, you'd be sterile ten times over already from background radiation.

No, because the magnitude of background radiation is much much lower, disorganized, diffused by the Earth's atmosphere and electromagnetic field, non-directional, and not pointed in an organized fashion directly at your body, and doesn't reach nearly the energy levels of the backscatter machine. Especially when operators make mistakes with the machine that cause people to get even more exposure than they are supposed to, or to be exposed longer than the 2 seconds they are supposed to, that all the numbers validating its safety are based on -- when they make someone stand in the scanner for a few minutes with it running, the person is getting massive amounts of harmful radiation exposure, way beyond what is safe or indicated.

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318934)

If you're that worried about xray radiation, don't fly! The radiation from the backscatter xray is only equivalent to 4 minutes of flight time for the typical scan time so even if you are in the scanner for a full 2 minutes it's only equal to the dosage you are going to get on a short flight.

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319130)

Troll, really? I stated a fact that is on topic, how is that trolling?

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (1, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319208)

Even if that's true, why are you defending fascism? Seriously. Is there any level of ogvernment intrusion into your privacy that you would object to? Any at all?

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (2, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319258)

Uh, privacy concerns are quite separate from medical concerns. I object to the intrusiveness of the scans in the strongest terms possible but I also object to uninformed anti-science and technology mumbo-jumbo.

Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319036)

Frisking bad as it is, is unlikely to give you cancer, deform your eggs/sperm, or sterilize you. So there's that.

Has anyone done a study on that? What's the cancer risk of those scans? Say it's 1 out of X million. So can we be sure that out of X million gonad gropes they're not going to cause permanent injury to the "target"? Or the risk ( probability * impact) of injury is less than the risk ( probability * impact) of cancer?

Apparently there are 700 million scans a year in the USA.

Maybe they should skip the x ray scanners and use millimeter wave scanners instead?

FWIW, apparently the Israelis don't use such scanners: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=2941610&sponsor= [vancouversun.com]

Pat downs (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318136)

This will just get you an enhanced pat down, which you could opt for in the first place.

Re:Pat downs (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318400)

Yup. All this does is:
Waste your money
Get you a dose of radiation while still ending in a patdown

Re:Pat downs (2, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318522)

On the plus side, it feels like wearing nothing at all! Nothing at all! Nothing at all!

(Stupid sexy Flanders...)

Re:Pat downs (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318846)

I like the idea of placing "hidden" messages (metal ink or thread) in yout under wear.

Re:Pat downs (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319164)

Normally, yeah, I’d call this self-defeating, but you can’t opt out of the scanner in the UK.

If you’re concerned about the radiation from the scanner and you’re traveling (or should I say travelling) in the UK, would this be a viable option to prevent your gonads from getting irradiated at the cost of a more uncomfortable exam?

(Personally my issue with the scanner isn’t the radiation, but for some people it is.)

Problem is... (2, Insightful)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318138)

If they can't see ALL of you, then they take you aside and pat you down. So with this device, instead of seeing you, they are going to take you aside and feel you up.

Similar... (1)

BobSutan (467781) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318156)

I was just thinking about something like this last night. I wonder why aluminum foil couldn't just be folded and inserted in a similar manner?

Re:Similar... (1)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318636)

Aluminum foil? There are some serious comfort issues with that choice of material.

Re:Similar... (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318886)

Seriously? You don't think that stuffing aluminum foil into your pants would get you fast-tracked to the airport's office with no windows and a door that only opens from the outside?

Ahh.. that 80's feeling (1)

RenHoek (101570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318176)

And thus the underwear arms race began.. .. did I tell you about the nuke I'm hiding in my boxers? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

Re:Ahh.. that 80's feeling (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318754)

I told them I had a rocket in my pocket, and they had me arrested.

begging for a crotch grab (1)

craftycoder (1851452) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318184)

These will be popular among those who like stragers to grope them.

Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318186)

I wonder what your odds of dying from TSA-induced cancer vs. an airline crash are?

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (4, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318296)

Forget that. Wonder about the odds of dying from a car crash, since you and millions of Americans decided to avoid flying this year [thehill.com] because of the patdowns and since driving is much, much more dangerous than flying.

The TSA kills Americans.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318468)

Looks like 400-500 [insure.com] people die on the road over the thanksgiving holiday each year. It will be interesting to see if this number increases in 2010.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318778)

That will merely result in some kind of "crackdown" on drivers... probably adding more fourth-amendment-violating "sobriety checkpoints" even though intoxication has nothing to do with it.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (1)

jlusk4 (2831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318486)

Um... No. Stupid Americans kill themselves. And sometimes take some of the rest of us with them.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318488)

They voted for this, so it's technically suicide.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (5, Insightful)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318908)

~520 annual increase in traffic fatalities was the estimate due to people driving over flying. I believe there was also admittance that the backscatter would cause about 16 additional cancer deaths annually.

Net effect is an estimated 536 increase in annual deaths.

Loss of life due to terrorist attack against westerners from 2006 to 2008 was 12 deaths annually worldwide.

The scanners are estimated to be more deadly than the terrorists have been.

Our trade offs are brilliant.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (1, Interesting)

fejikso (567395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318948)

Forget that. Wonder about the odds of dying from a car crash, since you and millions of Americans decided to avoid flying this year [thehill.com] because of the patdowns and since driving is much, much more dangerous than flying. The TSA kills Americans.

The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.

I have absolutely no problems being scanned or getting a deep patdown. One is in the same situation when you get a physical examination from your doctor. We have no problems with that because we don't want to risk our health. Why can't we do the same for our security?

These officers deal with so many people that I would doubt they would find it pleasurable after the 10,000th traveler. And even if they find pleasure off of it, what's the big frickin' deal? What if I like going to work because there's somebody good-looking in my office? (totally hypothetical, because it's sadly not my case, ha) Does that make me a bad employee? Pff!

You know what pisses me off the most at airports? Not hightened security, but the lack of electric outlets and free (or cheap) wifi. That aggravates me to no end.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (1)

jeti (105266) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318356)

I've read that dying from cancer as a result of undergoing these scans is about as likely as being on a plane with a bomb.
Both risks are negligible compared to getting a direct hit by lightning.

So instead of buying this underwear, you should get an umbrella with an integrated lightning rod (they were quite popular once).

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318430)

Well, your odds of dying from cancer induced from sitting in the airplane are substantially higher than your odds of dying from cancer induced by the screening.

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (1)

mibe (1778804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318502)

From this article: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20100113.html [findlaw.com]

More importantly for our purposes, assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result. ... Globally, about 2 billion passengers fly each year, so screening all passengers with backscatter X-ray scans could reasonably be expected to result in about 32 excess cancer deaths per year.

This is assuming of course that the backscatter x-ray works the same way. I'm not a physicist, but at least one professor at UCSF has raised the concern ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html#ixzz155dhfUQO [cnet.com] ) that calculating the dosage by averaging over the whole body will give you a false low dose because the radiation is reflected off the skin and so is more concentrated there. Of course there are very intelligent people on both sides of the discussion, but I think it's a moot point regarding risk/benefit because the risks as stated above by experts (even though they may actually be higher) are already greater than the number of people who currently die to terrorism. So, our protective measure results in more deaths per year than does airline terrorism. Again, take all this with a grain of salt because of confounding variables like age and other idiosyncratic factors (will they live long enough to develop cancer? are they more susceptible to cancer due to youth/genetics?), but I'm going to opt for the pat-down to err on the side of caution, as it were.

The Wikipedia page has a good overview of the conflicting sources regarding the safety of the scanners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray [wikipedia.org]

Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318514)

I wonder what your odds of dying from TSA-induced cancer vs. an airline crash are?

  • You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist
  • You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack
  • You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
  • You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

More [newsblaze.com] . So really, can we just end the security theater?

you're still being exposed to x-rays (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318190)

http://j.mp/cancer-ray

Not good for breast cancer survivors, adolescents, or young children.

It's unclear ... (5, Informative)

Evardsson (959228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318204)

From the article: It's unclear whether it would lead to an automatic, more intrusive pat down by federal Transportation Security Administration officials.

No, if the image is unclear, the TSA's reaction is not. If you are not sure, check out what Dave Barry went through when the image of his groin was "blurry" http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131338172/humorist-dave-barry-and-the-tsa [npr.org]

Re:It's unclear ... (1)

dragin33 (529413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319066)

Indeed. If your have blurry junk you will get your junk touched by another man.

Christmas goose (1)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318212)

This is a solution that causes all sorts of problems. The reason they are scanning and ball-tapping is because they're afraid of underwear bombs. If you don't think this'll get you cavity searched, you're out of your mind!

Re:Christmas goose (4, Informative)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318330)

They don't do cavity searches, that's part of the bizarre theatre of it all. Part of the point of this article was that most people hide illicit things in areas which would require a cavity search and they just feel you up. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/ [theatlantic.com]

Re:Christmas goose (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318690)

A coworker went through the rapescan a couple months ago. Get this, though -- he was wearing a buttplug at the time and they didn't notice it. I think it was a metal one, too (he was caught by the metal detector first).

Re:Christmas goose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318804)

Get this, though -- he was wearing a buttplug at the time and they didn't notice it.

Do I dare ask? Oh, what the hell...

Why was he wearing a buttplug at the airport?

From a buddy of mine (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318276)

"Body scans and genital fondlings would save more lives if our government was paying to have them done in hospitals rather than airports."

This of course assumes the scans are safe, but you get the idea...

Re:From a buddy of mine (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318480)

Having a backscatter body scan done once a year is safer than having a single transmission X-ray taken.

Of course, the resolution that the TSA uses is insufficient for proper medical imaging. A higher-resolution image would require a higher beam intensity.

Re:From a buddy of mine (2, Funny)

Blindman (36862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318518)

Why not do both?

I see you aren't carrying a bomb, and you might want to get this mass checked out by a doctor. This would probably make the scanning more popular, although it might cause people without insurance to act suspicious when flying to get a free scan.

Re:From a buddy of mine (2, Funny)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318816)

Hmm, why not combine the two. Not only will you get cleared through security at the airport but you'll also receive a free health screening. Just think of it... free colonoscopies, hysteroscopies, and breast exams. It'd be an incredible time saver to not have to schedule a separate examination. Heck it'd even help curb the worry about that at risk segment of the male population needing but not getting an annual mammo...

Huge order for the produce recieved (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318380)

Apparently Omar Mohammad al-Talibani al-Q`aidi of Yemen just placed an order for one million of this new fangled thing.

um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318392)

yeah, if it is your private parts you are worried about... people might be embarrassed about their general shape.

It's a religious thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318420)

You know they will start giving people flack about this kind of underwear if people start using these regularly. If they do that, people should use the excuse this is a religious thing. Heck, isn't there a religion that already requires special underwear? (lol Mormons)

Parents should be sure to get these for their kids to so they don't go to hell for letting them go through those scanners.

Oh, and watch out for the TSA underpants gnomes.

This has potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318424)

I wonder if you could use this material to write messages on your body?

Horrible Idea (1)

deadend44 (1728576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318456)

So now we're making a readily available concealing device that doesn't set-off metal detectors. I can guarantee that if they can't see what's in your underwear with the scanner then it will throw up red flags and they'll see what is in your underwear themselves. All this does is add an extra step and frustrate TSA agents.

Re:Horrible Idea (5, Insightful)

pngwen (72492) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318624)

I'm all for frustrating TSA agents. Those people are traitors to the cause of liberty. 200 years ago, they would have all been hanged. I think frustrating them is a little less extreme, don't you?

Re:Horrible Idea (5, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318744)

I reluctantly agree with this point. Although I am generally a law-and-order kind of guy, I think airport security is outside any reasonable threshold along the sliding scale of security, and therefore I think it is unethical for any individual to participate in the enforcement of that security. Basically what I'm saying is fuck those guys, they must be assholes if they agree to do that job.

fuck the tsa (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318528)

how about a "fuck the tsa" lead paint t-shirt? Maybe some leather-studded chastity underwear and crotchless chaps, too.

Re:fuck the tsa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318766)

All of that is not needed. IF I were to fly this holiday season, I would be going commando in sweatpants.

Re:fuck the tsa (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319042)

lead paint t-shirt

I'm pretty sure China is already shipping these.

4th amendment point (5, Insightful)

yossie (93792) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318536)

4th amendment protects you against unreasonable search. Seems like it would apply at the airport. TSA claims that you are contractually obligated to put up with search when you enter the secure area and that your air travel ticket states this and as such is a contract. But, you aren't able to sign away your constitutional rights implying, at least, that this component of the air travel contract is illegal. How does this all square up?

Re:4th amendment point (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318784)

What makes you think a TSA Gate Rape is an "unreasonable" search?

Note: if you're not citing statute or Federal Court case law, and you don't happen to be a Federal Court Justice, then your opinion doesn't really matter, does it?

Re:4th amendment point (2, Interesting)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319078)

You don't have to be a judge to know when something is unreasonable. Waterboarding is unreasonable, because it's torture. Bailouts without prison sentences to CEOs that instantly go spend half the bailout on their workers that fucked up in the first place? Unreasonable too. It's common sense, and you don't need a commitee to tell you that. If we waited for judges to enact civil rights, Obama wouldn't even have been able to become president, much less win. It's generally the people themselves that dictate morality for the civil servants that actually have a sense of morality. Generally, the idea is the congress is supposed to represent the people, not their interest groups that fund their campaigns. And generally, none of this happens because they're all bastards and businessmen who don't care in the slightest.

Re:4th amendment point (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318946)

Two-thirds of Americans think this search is "reasonable", as do apparently all elected officials and judges. Also, you are absolutely able to sign away your constitutional rights, that happens all the time, for instance every time a criminal waives his right to a speedy trial, or testifies at his own trial, or speaks to the police without a lawyer present. It also happens when you consent to a police search (they don't need consent for any reasonable or warranted search), and it definitely explicitly happens when you go to airports and volunteer to go through security.

Re:4th amendment point (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318998)

It's really quite simple. The argument always goes something along the lines of it all being "voluntary." You are not required to fly, you are volunteering to fly and by doing so you are submitting to what ever rules and regulations follow along with that. You haven't set aside nor lost your 4th amendment rights, you volunteered for the process unlike a police action wherein they are doing it against your will.

Re:4th amendment point (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319174)

"to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" -- Declaration of Independence.

The fundamental purpose of government is to protect your rights. And yet the government now says you must give up your rights to fly. Don't like it? Just take the train. Until they require rapescan and molesting for that, too (subways and trains have been terrorist targets in other countries). But you can still drive, at least until they remember car bombs. But really, you need to give up your rights so the government can protect your rights.

What I don't understand is... (1)

djh2400 (1362925) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318568)

Why can't a person just fold their hands in front of them while going through the machine, thereby covering up those sensitive parts? Last I checked, the hands pretty much hang down at the same height...

Re:What I don't understand is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34318628)

If they were allowed to hide things with their hands, they might be able to hide things with their hands.

captcha: unarmed

Just for a laugh... (3, Funny)

Elegor (866572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318646)

A woman could use an 'underwear insert' in the shape of a humongous cock and balls. Question is, would that mean she is more or less likely to get groped? And would she be groped by a male agent or a female one?

Am I the only one? (0)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318746)

Am I the only person in the world that has no problem with this?

personally, the idea of getting into a flying metal bullet and being propelled through the air at hundreds of kilometers per hour with a hundred+ other people that COULD have an implement to kill anybody on board or prevent the aircraft from being able to land without anybody even bothering to check if the passengers have said implements on them: just sounds like a bad idea.

If you have issues with what your junk looks like, I feel terribly sorry for you. give your parents a smack sometime (unless they are no longer around.. then maybe just give yourself a smack so as not to be an asshat!) and ask them why they decided to raise you to be afraid of who and what you are.
we're all human. If somebody criticizes your bits, grow a pair and get the fuck over it.

Re:Am I the only one? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318796)

Just because you don't care about your 4th Amendment Rights does not mean they are important. When will you start to care? When you start to get stopped on the street for no reason and have to submit to a finger in the butt cavity search?

Tin foil underwear! (1)

sverdlichenko (105710) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318820)

World coming to its end!

Aluminum foil (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318836)

I haven't flown in many months, but I was thinking about next time I go through airport security I could use packing tape to attach strips of aluminum foil to my chest spelling out FUCK YOU. This would be clearly visible in the X-ray, but would not be visible otherwise, and an agent could not even feel it during a pat down. It furthermore would not provide any security threat, and could not possibly conceal any weapon. It would be a pure speech opportunity. How could or would TSA respond to such a thing?

it was (1)

KevMar (471257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318870)

it was only a matter of time.

Re:it was (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34319124)

Finally there is a good excuse for rusted pants.

The only real solution to by-pass... (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 3 years ago | (#34318972)

The only real solution to by-pass the uncomfortable pad down and see thru scanner is castration.

Irrelevant (1)

wwphx (225607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319010)

There has not been enough study of ionizing radiation risks to form a clear consensus. I have a genetic immune disorder and will not subject myself to this, nor will I subject myself to being molested by a government agent.

What I would like to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34319012)

What I would like is some sort of marker or tape that would allow me to spell out "F*CK YOU" on my ass so the TSA goon running the scanner knows just what I think of him and the secret police organization he works for.

One advantage to doing this is that such an image would no doubt be widely distributed around the internet thereby proving that scanner images can be saved and redistributed.

seems like a good idea.. (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319032)

if you wear it on the outside.

TSA is killing people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34319046)

About 1 billion passengers fly every year in the USA.

Assume very conservatively that extra security measures are adding about 5 minutes to the time taken for each flight (it's probably a lot more owing to the extra time-safety margin generally required to ensure you get through security on time) and that's 100 million hours.

Now given that you spend about 400000 hours awake during an 80 year life that is the equivalent of about 250 lives being wasted on this excercise every year in the USA.

It's even worse than that if you think of all the money wasted on it that could be more efficiently spent on reducing life lost in other areas of genuine need (eg health care for the poor).

In TSA world, suspicious != terrorist, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34319052)

Don't worry, if you're just wearing underwear made of weird metals, there's no chance whatsoever they'd escort you to whichever emphatically-not-Gitmo site in Eastern Elbonia that is in operation this week.

Spell it out (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319088)

How about cutting some metal foil into letters, glue them onto your undies, and spell out a message for the TSA?
You know, tell them what to do with themselves?

FUGLY (1)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 3 years ago | (#34319240)

As in, "Fig Leaf UGLY." Has anyone actually bothered to look at the image in the article? Seriously? A fig-leaf design for men and "clasped hands" for women? WTF?

Dude. I'd sooner let the agent grope me than be caught wearing something like that. Especially if he's cute. (I kid, I kid)

I think the solution is simple--force everyone to wear a standard skintight full-body lycra uniform prior to entering the security area, and have designated changing areas once past security. Sure, the TSA agents would eventually go blind from the abject horror that is American obesity, but hey, that's their problem, not ours.

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...