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!

DHS Eyes Covert Body Scans

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the oh-do-they-ever dept.

Government 386

CWmike writes "Documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) suggest that the US Department of Homeland Security has signed contracts for the development of mobile and static systems that can be used scan pedestrians and people at rail and bus stations and special event venues — apparently at times without their knowledge. Under consideration: An Intelligent Pedestrian Surveillance platform; an X-Ray Backscatter system that could detect concealed metallic and high-density plastic objects on people from up to 10 meters away; a walk-through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest, which could be installed in corridors and likely scan people walking through it without them knowing it, EPIC said."

cancel ×

386 comments

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

I think this is a good thing (2, Interesting)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372832)

If the technology is out there to do this safely and securely, how could it possibly be a bad thing. These being used at major gatherings - Olympics, Superbowl, World Cup - all round the world these should be able to be used given the current state of the world we live in.

Re:I think this is a good thing (4, Insightful)

GizmoToy (450886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372872)

But the safety of the machines is still somewhat in question. The government says they're fine, but researchers in the field aren't quite so sure. You can't just go around radiating people. Beyond the obvious privacy concerns, there are health concerns as well.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1, Interesting)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373014)

I agree - that's why I said "If... safely and securely". Privacy concerns in this respect wouldn't worry me. Living in the UK I'm aiming to go to several Olympic events in 2012 - and I'd much rather know that there was no way anything was getting in to the stadium that shouldn't be there.

Re:I think this is a good thing (2)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373100)

and I'd much rather know that there was no way anything was getting in to the stadium that shouldn't be there.

Then there is a very simple solution: everyone who wants to get into an event must strip completely and put their pile of clothes and things into the x-ray machine before they walk through a metal detector.

This solves both problems: nothing that shouldn't get in does, and you aren't exposed to any radiation (above and beyond the normal background).

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373368)

One small problem with that plan, people can hide things in their orifices. Better give everyone a full body cavity exam too.

Re:I think this is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373174)

When you are at the Olympics you can be sure that the pervs manning the scanners completely ignore Johnny Jihad unless he is their kink. Attractive women will of course have to be scanned in great detail and maybe some kids too if that is the perv flavor of the day.

Re:I think this is a good thing (4, Insightful)

jijacob (943393) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373178)

So who says someone couldn't just walk up to the giant gatherings *outside* a stadium and blow those people up? Or release a highly poisonous chemical into the water system for the stadium? I doubt such a system would actually do much to increase security. I know they haven't done much for the air-based transport in the US.

Re:I think this is a good thing (5, Informative)

DJ Particle (1442247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373286)

That was how the recent Moscow bombing happened. The terrorist in that case simply got into the security queue and blew *that* up. -.-

There is no way to be 100% safe. People somewhere forgot that freedom means being willing to take the risks associated with it.

Re:I think this is a good thing (5, Interesting)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373182)

I agree - that's why I said "If... safely and securely". Privacy concerns in this respect wouldn't worry me. Living in the UK I'm aiming to go to several Olympic events in 2012 - and I'd much rather know that there was no way anything was getting in to the stadium that shouldn't be there.

Need I actually point out that these machines will NOT allow you to know that 'there was no way anything was getting in'? They may make you think this is true and make you feel happy and warm and fuzzy about how safe you are, but nothing really changes --- except that a lot of people carrying a lot of innocuous things will get hassled and have their personal belongings confiscated, all in the name of making stupid people feel safer. Not actually BE safer, mind you, just feel that way.

It should not be a surprise to anyone here that installing such a system at any Olympics venue will simply be viewed as a challenge to act by any nefarious types, even those whose sole goal is to bypass challenges like this and not actually harm you.

Re:I think this is a good thing (3, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373288)

a lot of people carrying a lot of innocuous things will get hassled and have their personal belongings confiscated, all in the name of making stupid people feel safer.

None of it is about weapons. It's all about concession stands (and preventing people from bringing in "outside" beer). Weapons are just an excuse to make people think rooting through your belongings makes sense.

Re:I think this is a good thing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373512)

What about all the reports of the things these scanners seem to miss? Search the news--there are multiple reports of things getting through that shouldn't. Also, if they can't get in with their weapons of terror, they'll just do it outside. All the invasive full-body scanners didn't do a damn thing in Moscow. They'll just blow up the airport before the security checkpoint (where hundreds of people are probably waiting) instead. They don't really care. So they'll blow up the street outside the stadium where you're waiting to get in, or as you're leaving when you're stuck in a crowd or traffic.

You people who say "They can do anything they want as long as it keeps me safe!" are idiots. To think that they're going to put an end to terrorism and keep everyone safe is moronic and naive.

A terrorist's goal is to make people terrified. Of the terrorists. Of their governments. Of themselves. I'd say they've done a fine job of it, given the current state of the world we live in. Everyone is actually convinced that we should be spied upon right down to our private areas and give up our privacy under the illusion of safety. When you consider what these continually invasive actions and revocation of freedoms are doing to our societies, it would appear the terrorists are the ones who are winning this.

Re:I think this is a good thing (3, Insightful)

snsh (968808) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373030)

The safety issue is a distraction from the real issue, which is that the 4th amendment is supposed to prevent DHS employees from doing these searches.

Re:I think this is a good thing (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373064)

Why would they be allowed to operate a medical device without a doctor present?

This is the same reason I refuse to go through the machines at the airport. I wouldn't use an xray machine without a doctor, and in fact I believe it's illegal to do so. So why would I let some minimum wage security guard xray me?

Re:I think this is a good thing (5, Funny)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373366)

You can't just go around radiating people.

Indeed. The laws of physics, specifically concerning the creation and destruction of matter and energy, would indicate that in order to "radiate people" you'd have to have not only one hell of an energy source on your person, but something akin to an insanely cool energy-to-matter converter capable of creating atoms in the precise configuration as to generate a person.

Now, on the other hand, you may have meant "you can't just go around irradiating people", as in the verb irradiating, which means "exposing to radiation."

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

GizmoToy (450886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373458)

Fair enough. The mental image of a device that "radiate people" gave me a good laugh. I'd mod you up if I could.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372874)

I think you're an idiot. It doesn't mean I'm right.

Re:I think this is a good thing (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372876)

Fuck you! Seriously. Ignorance is not bliss, it can give you cancer and kill you. But I guess you don't give a shit about that, or actual threat level or that these scanners are more dangerous than the actual criminals.. BIG BROTHER, PROTECT ME!!!!

Re:I think this is a good thing (4, Insightful)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372888)

"Safely" is the key word, imho. There's no reliable data (ie, not provided by the manufacturers of the devices themselves) as to the level of x-ray exposure and the long term effects of repeated exposures. There's no way to know how "safe" they are until longitudinal studies can be completed and that takes a long time. In the mean time, it's "take our word for it." I'd rather not.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372998)

"Safely" is the key word, imho. There's no reliable data (ie, not provided by the manufacturers of the devices themselves) as to the level of x-ray exposure and the long term effects of repeated exposures. There's no way to know how "safe" they are until longitudinal studies can be completed and that takes a long time. In the mean time, it's "take our word for it." I'd rather not.

Agreed. And what is even more troubling are the studies that are coming out from California looking at 50 years of medical radiation data. The troubling part, the experts are saying that the safe level of radiation for the last 50 years has not been safe at all.

So if the "safe level" isn't safe, then how could an unstudied form of radiation be anywhere near safe.

Better yet, who is going to be responsible for all the additional medical cost coming the additional levels exposure?

Re:I think this is a good thing (4, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373236)

Additionally with 'concealed' scanners you would be receiving and unknown and uncontrolled level of dosage. Where a paranoid nutjob that never leaves there home until they go on a killing spree will get no radiation zaps from these toys, the home team supporter may get hundreds or more in a year. Can you find any competent radiologist who would say that's acceptable? I really doubt it. Heck, I had one balk at giving me a fourth x-ray that year (it was still spring), how do you think they'd feel about someone getting zapped 5 times in one football game or court hearing? (Imagine the units were installed in stadiums, airports, bus/rail stations, malls, government buildings, schools, etc. Invisible things are place more than the same visible item because people don't raise a fuss since they don't notice them.)

Worse yet, what if someone stopped and stood in the scan location. Yes, the scan location will be unmarked. You don't employ a 'covert' scanning device and put up a big flashing sign that says "stand here to be covertly x-rayed". And yes, people will do it if it's an entryway, they'll even do it in a doorway. You want to know how many people I've seen get hit by automated doors closing because they stood in the doorway itself where the sensor couldn't see them? Let's just leave it at a lot. Think about it, how often do you see people standing in entryways and the like, not caring if they are blocking the way for others. Even though you might like the idea of a little revenge on them, is possible death and other somewhat less serious health issues an appropriate punishment for being obliviously impolite?

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373356)

So if the "safe level" isn't safe, then how could an unstudied form of radiation be anywhere near safe.

Maybe there's a dip in the safety graph where the radiation is enough to kill cancer but not normal cells (which is potentially a higher dose than what causes normal cells to become cancerous)?

agreed. (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373132)

The problem from my perspective comes in with the fact that at every individual level of the process from decision making to grunt work involved with the installation of these horrible things there is a high incentive to cooperate with the install while the liability for blame if they turn out to be unsafe is nearly inapplicable to any of said individuals themselves.

From the execs who are making money on the deals to install these things to the politicians who are gaining the ability to show they're "doing something" about homeland security by pushing for the installs to the techs who have to themselves physically install them and monitor them but only do so in order to keep their jobs and feel personally safe because they can warn their friends and families about where the devices are all installed it is near certain that if there WERE any health safety issues inherent to the technology nobody in the general consumer-level of the public would have a chance of finding out about it until it was too late.

*sigh*

Luckily for me the market is so bad I can't really afford to spend the money on going anywhere these things are likely to be installed anyway. If they try to install one on the front door of my apartment though everyone involved is going to have a *very* bad day.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372902)

I agree! I wonder if I can buy my own to scan myself where ever I go just in case someone planted a bomb on me without my knowledge.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373028)

ROFLMFAO

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373378)

You just made me think of Fallout.

Ahh, pickpocketing people and planting grenades on them was so much fun...

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372996)

The state of the world where 99.9% of the population has not been directly involved in a terrorist incident?

Re:I think this is a good thing (2)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373056)

Yep that's the one. The world where one of those 0.1% can carry out an outrage in a major venue somewhere that kills and maims thousands of the 99.9%.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373118)

You misunderstood. The bad actors are much less than 0.1%. The 0.1% are the ones that they kill and maim.

Anyway, it is stupid to try to divide the world into areas that are safe and areas that are not safe (nothing can ever be completely safe, only safe from certain threats), much better to try to figure out who the bad actors are and stop them directly.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373192)

it is stupid to try to divide the world into areas that are safe and areas that are not safe (nothing can ever be completely safe, only safe from certain threats), much better to try to figure out who the bad actors are and stop them directly.

Bruce Schneier spotted!

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373280)

"much better to try to figure out who the bad actors are and stop them directly."

Bruce Schneier spotted!

No no no, you're thinking of Bruce Boxleitner [wikipedia.org] . ;-)

I kid, I kid. He was good in Babylon 5.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373422)

1 out of every 1000 people will die from terrorist attacks? Thats just not true, but lets go with an extremely generous estimate [reason.com] of 1 out of every 10,000. As a UK male there is a 1.8 in 10,000 chance [suicide.org] you will kill yourself. You're absolutely right, the threat of terrorism is just silly to handle with random spot-checks.

If you want to improve peoples lives with them big terrorism places aren't where you want them, you want them to prevent domestic, run-of-the-mill crimes in subway tunnels or something. Even then its still stupid, but at least you're fighting a real problem that way. "Oh no! Our big ass bomb didn't make it all the way inside the stadium!" probably isn't going to stop the boogey-man from blowing it up from the outside if he actually exists.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373196)

Oh wow thousands. So basically less folks than food poisoning, or car accidents, or anything statistically relevant.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373002)

You shouldn't mind if I grab your nuts then. Present them for inspection citizen. TOO SMALL CUT THEM OFF!

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373076)

Far too late my friend - my wife did that years ago.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373194)

LOL, retort of the week my friend. That made my day.

Re:I think this is a good thing (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373054)

If the technology is out there to do this safely and securely, how could it possibly be a bad thing.

Well, I believe it would be unconstitutional, for starters as it would pretty much violate the Fourth Amendment.

No warrant, no probably cause, no judicial oversight. This is a bad idea.

Re:I think this is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373282)

No 4th amendment necessary. You don't want to be scanned, don't go to the game. Or leave your house, or whatever it takes to avoid the scanner. They're not forcing you to be scanned, you're choosing to be where their scanner is, even if you don't know it's there.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

SimonTS (1984074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373304)

Fourth amendment? What's one of those then?

I live in the UK and we have NO rights anymore as our pussy-whipped government refuse to go against what the almighty King Europe tell us to do.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373446)

Fourth amendment? What's one of those then?

Well, as it's a story about the American Department of Homeland Security, it's pertinent [wikipedia.org] .

And, in theory in the US, the Constitution should prevent this kind of thing from happening. Hell, I'm not even an American, and I'm outraged by this.

I live in the UK and we have NO rights anymore as our pussy-whipped government refuse to go against what the almighty King Europe tell us to do.

Subjugated by one King or another, what's the difference? Just because you guys have lost all of your freedoms, doesn't mean the rest of us are keen to.

Re:I think this is a good thing (2)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373066)

If the technology is out there to do this safely and securely, how could it possibly be a bad thing.

Oh the naivety .-_-.

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373116)

The "current state of the world" is not any different now than it ever has been before. If there were any argument to be made that your personal safety is different now than in times past, I would argue that the end of the cold war has increased your personal safety from random unforeseen death substantially.

My cynicism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373138)

...these should be able to be used given the current state of the world we live in.

Thank you!

See, I was just starting to have faith in humanity. Faith that maybe, just maybe, humanity has some sort of rationality. That people can think for themselves and have their own opinions.

See, I think people are stupid. I think people can be swayed with propaganda and bogus arguments from the media and government and think they're being intelligent, rational, and that they're not dumb enough to fall for the rhetoric and garbage that's spoon fed to them by the electronic media.

I have been right all along.

I know, you think I'm just a ranting raving AC who thinks there's conspiracies going all around him.

No, I don't. That would imply that there's someone or some organization that's smart enough to pull that off. I wish that were true believe it or not.

What's really happening is pathetic government bureaucrats protecting their pathetic jobs.And politicians catering to morons, such as yourself, to get re-elected.

There are politicians protecting their interests by catering to the money. You have bureaucrats setting themselves up for seven figure jobs after their government appointed position; like Chertoff.

Nope. Just little people screwing all of us to get their bigger piece of the pie.

Thank you again for proving me, once again, for being right.

You are an idiot (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373200)

If the technology is out there to do this safely and securely, how could it possibly be a bad thing. These being used at major gatherings - Olympics, Superbowl, World Cup - all round the world these should be able to be used given the current state of the world we live in.

Assuming that these were cheap, and completely safe (ha!), you still would be completely wrong in your thinking. You should not be doing this because simply have no right to do this. Do you frisk down everyone who comes to visit you at your house?

More to the point, what do you hope to accomplish by doing this? What problem are you solving? Is there some sort of problem where people are bringing guns into sporting events and shooting the place up, because l have yet to hear of an instance of this sort of thing happening. Or, are you just buying into the bullshit that the world is an inherently dangerous place to live, and more rent-a-cops with metal detectors will fix it?

"He who trades liberty for security deserves neither"

Re:You are an idiot (1)

praxis (19962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373438)

At one does have the right to frisk everyone wishing to enter their home, should they chose and the visitor consent before being permitted entry. This, though, is more like checking out the anal cavity of the women in front of you at the check-out line, just in case she has a bomb up there, you know, just in case. Also, poisoning her while you're at it. Without her knowing.

Re:I think this is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373248)

We could safely and securely conduct strip and body cavity searches of people at major gatherings, so how could that be a bad thing?

Re:I think this is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373250)

Are you being serious? Do you even know what liberty means?

Re:I think this is a good thing (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373462)

Those are some pretty big if's:

1. The safety of the machines hasn't been proven, they haven't been out long enough to compile long term statistics on their safety to the public and to the people running the scanners. Xrays are ionizing radiation, and even if they don't penetrate the skin I can't imagine that messing around with skin cell DNA molecules is healthy for anyone and there are some real questions [npr.org] about the effects of the machines. What safeguards are in the machine to monitor X-ray levels and prevent overdosing? Everyone here knows that even if there are safeguards in place, they are not [wikipedia.org] foolproof [medpagetoday.com] .

2. The security of the scanners is quite another unknown - who will be viewing the images? What precautions are taking to protect the privacy of the virtually naked pictures of an unsuspecting public?

And the biggest "if": Have the machines proven to be effective? Some researchers have already found trivial ways to bypass the scanners (hiding contraband in a body cavity is the obvious hole (no pun intended), but they also found that you can tape high explosives to your body [reason.com] to conceal it. And a typical bus station or stadium has more security holes than an airport (which have already been shown to have a porous perimeter despite the security screenings), so why should we think that scanning the public will enhance security at all?

Told you so (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372838)

This was an obvious extension to the FUD factor being created by DHS.

No surprise really (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372868)

What these guys clearly want is the right to search any and all persons without their knowledge and without anything remotely resembling probable cause. Right now, they can at least claim that you consent to being searched when you decide to board a plane. But this is something different, because you do not consent to a search when you walk down a street.

Now show me your papers please.

Re:No surprise really (4, Funny)

Utini420 (444935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372938)

Oh, don't bother, we can read them while they are still in your pocket.

Re:No surprise really (0)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373154)

Well, actually, instead of papers (which of course could be forged or passed from one person to another) we'd probably instead put some sort of special mark directly on a person's body, perhaps their forehead (so they can easily be identified) and another one on their right hand (for easy scanning). I'm sure the right-wing crowd in the United States would have no problems with that, as it sure would make it hard for somebody to infiltrate the "in" group.

Re:No surprise really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373412)

The irony of this, of course, is that up to 20-30 years ago, the Republicans were the ones accusing the Democrats of wanting to install just these kinds of systems and processes. They were the Party of freedom and Liberty! Of course, they had the Soviet Union, East Germany, etc. to hold up to to "protect" us from becoming like...

Yet after 9/11, we just needed to have the Dept of Homeland Security. Too bad the Dems were cowered into playing along then, and too many of them have been co-opted into continuing to play along with it now, too.

Re:No surprise really (2)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373012)

Sad as I am to say this, I am starting to care less and less about the US security regime. This is something the feds obviously want badly, and damned be innovation, education, and personal freedom. At this pace it's only a matter of time before another country takes advantage of this misguided path and surpasses them in all the areas that are being ignored. :(

Re:No surprise really (1)

praxis (19962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373502)

I'm sad to inform you that the matter of time has already passed. One could perhaps argue for innovation still, at least that's somewhat comparable. Education and personal freedom, not so much, the US is far from a world leader there.

Re:No surprise really (2)

Zerth (26112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373270)

Much like police can't use radar and thermal cameras to peer through the walls of your house, I'd like to hope that using this on the street would get smacked down.

However, they could probably get away with checkpoints, much like DUI stops, and putting them at the entrance to venues(by putting acceptance of use in tiny letters on tickets).

cant wait to see the excuse for reinterpreting the (3, Funny)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372880)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
They will probably use the olde Family guy argument -
Peter: Brian, are you suggesting that 9/11 didn't change everything?
Brian: What? No, I was just...
Peter: 'Cause 9/11 changed everything, Brian! 9/11 changed everything!

DAMN :(

Re:cant wait to see the excuse for reinterpreting (1)

DJ Particle (1442247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373332)

Hmm...last I knew, 9/11 didn't change the actual US Constitution one iota. Last I knew it took 38 states in agreement to do that.

Yes I know that's not being followed in practice, but until such time as the Constitution gets formally amended, I shall continue to assume it's the law of the land, and I'm prepared to face the risks involved.

Absolutely not. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372886)

You know, I've given blood for this country, but I always thought that if things really got bad enough, I would have to finally take the plunge and expatriate. It always seemed to be an idea right up there with "if my whole family and everybody i cared about was dead, I would become a vigilante hero until I finally died in one last blaze of glory against the police". A fantasy.

But now I read stuff like this and have to laugh, because now that it looks like things might actually get that bad, bad enough to consider leaving, there's nowhere to expatriate to.

Re:Absolutely not. (2)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372920)

I always thought that if things really got bad enough, I would have to finally take the plunge and expatriate.

Where would you go? It's the same shit or (usually) worse everywhere.

Re:Absolutely not. (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373072)

Head north. History should have told you that one.

They *do* realize this, right? (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372910)

They're only giving credibility to the tinfoil hat (underwear?)-wearing crowd.

Re:They *do* realize this, right? (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372946)

They gave credibility to those guys a long time ago.

Just look at all the documentaries that have been produced in the last 20-30 years that come at things from a totally conspiracy theory viewpoint. Shit, some of the more outlandish ones have even been proven right, at least partially.

If you wish to know the Devil (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372914)

give a man the power of God.

(I don't remember the exact quote)

pregnant women? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372926)

Yeah, I'm sure covertly x-raying people will go down really well with pregnant women. I don't care if they say backscatter x-rays emit a safe level of radiation that poses no risk to a fetus. I wouldn't trust it. First, I'm not convinced they've done adequate studies. Second, I'm not going to trust an x-ray emitting device that is neither medically certified nor operated by trained medical professionals.

Re:pregnant women? (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373414)

I hate these machines as much as anyone around here, but i'm not so sure pregnant women have anything extra to worry about. The whole point of backscatter/mm-wave scanners are that they don't penetrate much more than clothing. Anything hidden inside a body cavity (like a baby, obviously) wouldn't receive any dosage of radiation because it simply doesn't penetrate that deep.

What would they do if they see something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372944)

What would they do if they see something?

Re:What would they do if they see something? (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373124)

I would presume you would be detained, as they now have "probable cause".

Similar setup that they do with the "drug sniffing dogs" - the dogs aren't considered to be a search, but if they "find something", then it's probable cause for them to search you.

Sunbeds, cause cancer, not this? (3, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 3 years ago | (#35372948)

The backscatter system is designed to penetrate the outer layer of the skin. Experts have written to the US Government with concerns only to be answered with "it is too low power!" But the fact is that these machines cause cancer, the only question is how much cancer and if we're happy with killing one additional person every year, ten, or over a hundred?

Luckily it is impossible to show cause/effect between these machines and the cancers we know they will cause. Thus we can go on irradiating ourselves for many generations to come. I'd be very concerned if I was a frequent flier. You're a guinea pig. But now they want to expand this ineffective and unnecessary security theatre into the general populous? Very scary thought.

Re:Sunbeds, cause cancer, not this? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373032)

It looks as though the dark future is arriving right on schedule for Cyberpunk. All hail Mike Pondsmith [wikipedia.org] . Looks like I'm going to be wearing a trenchcoat in all seasons sooner than I thought.

Re:Cyberpunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373112)

That earned a +1 and an Anon Reply.

Captcha expelled

Re:Sunbeds, cause cancer, not this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373086)

I'm not a guinea pig because I 'prefer' to 'opt-out'. In fact, right now I'm making arrangements to opt-out by moving to a central location, probably the Louisville area, and driving everywhere. I am fully aware of how eccentric this seems, but getting my dick grabbed by a total stranger once or twice a week does weird things to me. I'm pretty sure the dude at SJC is gay.

I had one guy at IND tell me that what the machines put out is not radiation - it's the same stuff as what my cell phone puts out. I told him I worked on nuclear power plants for 6 years and I know what radiation is. The way he told me, I wondered what kind of propaganda the makers of those machines is feeding to the TSA agents.

Re:Sunbeds, cause cancer, not this? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373142)

The numbers I have read indicate that more people will die of backscatter induced cancers each year than would die from a mid-scale Project Orion [wikimedia.org] style single-stage-to-orbit launch. Now, which of those two things (scanning random people boarding airplanes vs getting multiple megatons of material into orbit) has a bigger benefit to humanity?

Re:Sunbeds, cause cancer, not this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373498)

I've read the report too. In once place they cite a number about safety - something about "10,000+ times" and still be in "recommended yearly maximum limit". 2 pages over, they say something like "skin is particularly sensitive organ to radiation - it will take 100s of scans to reach recommended yearly maximum".

Of course they forget to mention their entire study was assuming radiation is regular x-ray, or low interacting. This is very high interacting lower energy spectrum. Skin actually very highly interacts with these x-rays hence you can get an image at these "low dosage". Now, the low dosage is only a number - the effective dosage that is absorbed/reflected if it were "regular x-ray" energy band would be significantly higher.

So what do we know from this?

  1. no known research in safety in this energy band - it's new and shiny - 20-30 years until they figure out it is bad just like with the shoe-fitter-fluoroscopes
  2. energy band is highly interacting with the skin
  3. skin is very sensitive organ to x-rays
  4. gov't numbers are 100x off in the same report
  5. safety assumed it is higher energy x-ray machine
  6. using gov't numbers, more people will die from these x-ray machines than terrorist attacks in the US, even if you include the non-repeatable hijackings of 9/11

And I'm not even talking about the 4th amendment. Seriously, people should be jailed for knowingly breaking the constitution!

Re:Sunbeds, cause cancer, not this? (1)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373306)

The backscatter system is designed to penetrate the outer layer of the skin.

Close. The backscatter system is designed to collect photons that are scattered from the outer layer of the body. The ones that keep on going clear through or are absorbed don't matter. But you can see lung and bone shadows in even the officially released photos, so we know the photons are going deeper than the skin before being scattered.

No level of x-ray exposure is safe. Nothing above zero. Each exposure carries a certain risk, and the risk accumulates.

Health effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372960)

With the documented relationship between cancer and X-Rays over exposure, having ppl around X-raying you at random is certainly not comforting.

but what if you are running from Killian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35372986)

This will make it difficult to get to Hawaii and avoid the Running Man show......

That sound like fun (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373000)

Hack into one of those systems, put the pics on WikiLeaks and pass the popcorn.

Tag: Total Recall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373008)

Inevitable, I suppose.

Potentially harmful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373034)

While this sounds great, lets not forget that X-rays constitute harmful radiation. Why do you think the dentist hides behind a lead filled wall when he takes an X-ray of your teeth? I used to work with radioactive materials and I had a safety inspector describe radiation exposure to me as such: every second you are exposed to X-rays, you buy a ticket to the lottery; every second you are exposed to stronger radiation (alpha, beta, gamma) you buy multiple lottery tickets, only this lottery you do not want to win. This is why they don't take X-rays every time you go to the dentist, or why you should not fly often when you are pregnant. It all adds up. I realize that these scanners are for my safety, but I would like to be informed if there is a scanner in use, so that I can make the decision whether or not it is worth it for me to risk cancer or birth defects for my future children in exchange for attending said special event. This is why I always opt for the pat-down over the body scan at the airport.

Accidental Obstruction (1)

Utini420 (444935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373036)

If you obscure your scan in an airport (say, wrap your stuff in metal foil or put some of those fancy sheets of steel with the 4th amendment cut into it) you get denied access to the plane. OK, that's easy, and it makes cop-sense that you're opting out of your flight if you don't consent to the search. And I guess the same logic could apply to major events and the like, though I can see people having even less patience for the security theater on their way into something fun.

Wonder how they'd take to that just walking down the damn street, though, especially since the chances of blocking the scan on accident are greater in Real Life than in an airport. Knowing the way these assholes think, they might just try to slap you for obstruction of justice or some shit.

I'm starting to think we'd all be better off if there was a virus that specifically targeted cops and security types.

Re:Accidental Obstruction (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373256)

What if they find something on the street?
Does their machine magically know if I have a CCW permit or not?

Re:Accidental Obstruction (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373390)

you need a permit to turn things opposite of clock direction? really?

I misread that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373078)

At first I read it as "DHS Eyes Covet Body Scans".

That works too.

No fscking way (1)

cervo (626632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373080)

And why aren't these people in jail? Really from what I have seen reading experiences, it is obvious that the TSA people definitely enjoy looking at certain people more than others and can even be caught joking about it. It's not really their fault, because many of them are young people, and in their shoes I'm sure I would enjoy scanning that really cute blond too. But this is more about the sex crazed government guys sitting on their poles. Many of them are whining about pornography, that homosexuality is a crime, how dare you cheat on your wife, when it comes out they are doing the same thing.... How about that "family values" governor who ran to Argentina for his mistress. Congresscritters in general seem super hung up on sex and anything to do with it. Just look at what an outrage Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction caused... Or the outrage over the video games.... I really can't believe that they are going along with letting the TSA take all these nude pictures of people. Really they are all a bunch of spineless cowards, just attach think of the children or terrorism and then wooops....

Really my issue is the health. I'm not even a fan of the dentists. I put up with the normal x-rays, but when my dentist got the machine that goes around your head taking picture after picture, I changed dentists. I'm not about to start getting x-rayed all the time. Even if the power is low, if you start adding hundreds of scans per year, you end up being over exposed. And if they do it without you knowing, how do you know how much you are getting? Without data on how much people are being exposed how can you tell if the scans are causing cancer or not? This is my main issue, we know x-rays cause cancer or else the technician would not leave the room when taking them. If they are so safe, they should make a law that every time a TSA agent takes an x-ray of someone, they should have to x-ray themselves.... Then even if they keep using the devices, the TSA goons will start dying off...

Re:No fscking way (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373384)

I understand your concern about dental X-rays. I have an implant that needs to be checked every year or so, so I'd like to limit exposure.

One thing that helps: Find a dentist that has invested in a digital X-ray system. Rather than sticking a piece of film in your mouth, they put a small sensor that is about the same surface area and a bit thicker (but not flexible). Aside from the convenience and efficiency issues, the digital sensor is much more sensitive than film. So, the X-ray source can be set to about 10% of the power required for film.

However, It's an expensive investment. My dentist has a computer in each exam room, but only a single sensor that is moved to where it is needed and plugged into the USB port. The sensor alone costs about $8,000.

X-Ray Detector T-Shirts? (2)

northernboy (661897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373084)

You know those WiFi-sensitive T-Shirts from ThinkGeek? Maybe it's time for something that responds to X-radiation...

What could possibly go wrong? (1)

Kazymyr (190114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373096)

Seriously. Irradiating people without their knowledge - what could possibly go wrong? Including children.

There are scientists who are concerned that the govt guys have their numbers on safety wrong - in fact they have the right numbers but they are interpreting them wrongly. Take the backscatter X-ray approach for instance. The total radiation dose divided by the total body volume is low - however in fact that's not true. Because the radiation doesn't penetrate the whole body, its energy gets dispersed only in a few millimeters at the surface of the body - and in those few millimeters, the volume dose is hundreds of times higher than what the govt says is safe.

Skin cancer anyone?

What will technology bring us? (5, Insightful)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373108)

Okay, let's just consider this for a bit. Storage costs are dropping like a lead balloon. Chip costs as well.

Soon the idea that people are filming their lives constantly will be a fact rather than a story.

Image processing of said films and audio will allow us to ask our devices where we put our keys, and they will answer (think cheap massive storage meets IBM's Watson).

Our cars will drive themselves (seriously, 40,000 deaths per year because people can't drive well consistently WILL be converted into less than 400 deaths per year because automated cars have limits). First the cars will just kick in when they have to to save our lives, then they will just take over the job. And they will be able to record where we have been, and be able to discuss where we want to go within that historical and geographical context (car meets Watson).

But then things get sinister. The TSA/FBI/CIA/... will be able to record all sorts of things, and ask about what people have been doing. (Video surveillance meets Watson). And there is going to be piles of video for "Surveillance Watson" to think about. Think traffic cameras, hummingbird sized drones, parking lot cameras, etc.

People are going to go into a rage here about the radiation. But what happens when we figure out how to simply understand the changes to the background radiation just because people are walking about? We have all sorts of RF to use, all materials give off a certain amount of radiation, and we are walking through all of it. We have all sorts of sonic sources to process. The bottom line is that passive sensors will *at some point* be able to do what requires active radiation sources today.

Today the limits on processing random data streams limits what government can do with all these sources of information that produce tons and tons of junk for each ounce of "useful-to-three-letter-org" information. The law is increasingly irrelevant when it comes to restraining what these organizations do. What has saved us is that it is just too hard to process that much data.

But at some point it will NOT be too hard to process that much data. We need to make the law RELEVANT in restraining how we are observed, because even if I am wrong about the details I gave above, I am not wrong about the trend. The fact is that technology is going to be increasingly on the side of those that want to know everything about us even if they have no right to gather that information. And we will increasingly see this used to punish those that oppose those in power.

Re:What will technology bring us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373488)

Slippery slope aside, I would be quite satisfied with having a car that can take me where I want to go autonomously, but still offer me the ability to take manual control when I need it.

I personally hate driving because it boils down to me putting quarters into a machine that takes me beautiful places that I can't look at because I'm behind the wheel and have to pay attention and that shit head in the next lane over isn't paying attention is he going to swerve into my lane?

Life would be better if I didn't have to worry about driving places and instead let a computer do it.

If your car is auto-piloted, would you still be responsible for car insurance?

Great (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373126)

Lean against the wrong wall for a minute, get cancer.
USA

Where is the goddamn data? (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373218)

Is there data published anywhere that tells exactly what sort of radiation -- what energies and intensities -- these machines emit?

Rather than the TSA telling us they are safe, we should be able to figure this out for ourselves.

babys, good things come in 3's? even billions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373292)

they're always keeping track of their #s.

1. DEWEAPONIZATION (not a real word, but they like it) almost nothing else good happens until some progress here, 'they' say.

2. ALL BABYS CREATED/TO BE TREATED, EQUALLY. (a rough interpretation (probably cost us. seems like a no-brainer but they expressed that we fail on that one too(:)->) 'we do not need any 300$ 'strollers', or even to ride in your smelly cars/planes etc..., until such time as ALL of the creators' innocents have at least food, shelter, & some loving folks nearby.' again, this is a dealbreaker, so pay attention.

3. THOU SHALT NOT VACCINATE IRRESPONSIBLY. this appears to be a stop-gap intention.

the genuine feelings expressed included; in addition to the lack of acknowledgment of the advances/evolution of our tiny bodies/dna, almost nobody knows anymore what's in those things (vaccines) (or they'd tell us), & there's rumor much of it is less than good (possibly fatal) for ANY of us. if it were good for us we'd be gravitating towards it, instead of it being shoved in our little veins, wrecking them, & adversely affecting our improving immune systems/development? at rite-aid, they give the mommies 100$ if they let them stick their babys with whoknowswhat? i can see why they're (the little ones) extremely suspicious? many, oddly? have strong inclinations to want to grow up to be reporters of nefarious life threatening processes/conspiracies, as they sincerely believe that's 'stuff that REALLY matters', but they KNOW that things are going to be out in the open soon, so they intend to put their acute/astute senses/information gathering abilities to the care & feeding of their fellow humans. no secrets to cover up with that goal.

again, some 'alternatives' already arbitrarily in force by the 'grownups';

  The Georgia Guidestones, a massive granite edifice planted in the Georgia countryside, contains a list of ten new commandments for Earthâ€s citizens. The first commandment, and the one which concerns this article, simply states; Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.â€

Robert Walker, former chair of PepsiCo and Proctor & Gamble on water:

Water is a gift of nature. Its delivery is not. It must be priced to insure it is used sustainably.

Mikhail Gorbachev:

We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there arenâ€t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.â€

Jacques Cousteau UNESCO Courier 1991:

In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.

Jacques Cousteau, Population: Opposing Viewpoints:

If we want our precarious endeavor to succeed, we must convince all human beings to participate in our adventure, and we must urgently find solutions to curb the population explosion that has a direct influence on the impoverishment of the less-favoured communities. Otherwise, generalized resentment will beget hatred, and the ugliest genocide imaginable, involving billions of people, will become unavoidable.

Uncontrolled population growth and poverty must not be fought from inside, from Europe, from North America, or any nation or group of nations; it must be attacked from the outside & by international agencies helped in the formidable job by competent and totally non-governmental organizations.

David Rockefeller: Memoirs 2002 Founder of the CFR:

We wield over American political and economical institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as â€internationalists†and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political structure, one world, if you will. If thatâ€s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
David Rockefeller, Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission:

We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American Case Officer for the State Departmentâ€s Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (now the US State Dept. Office of Population Affairs, est. by Henry Kissinger in 1975): There is a single theme behind all our work -we must reduce population levels, said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Departmentâ€s Office of Population Affairs (OPA). Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. The professionals, said Ferguson, arenâ€t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population -or else we will have trouble.

So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it…. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there. (1981)

Aldous Huxley, Lecture named Population Explosion 1959:

…Let us ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are…The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way…Try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate by means less gruesome than those which are used by nature & by intelligent and human methods?…There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control & the control, for example, of infectious diseases & can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.

Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet:

There have been â€triage†proposals that would condemn whole nations to death through some species of global â€benign neglectâ€. There have been schemes for coercing people to curtail their fertility, by physical and legal means that are ominously left unspecified. Now we are told that we must curtail rather than extend our efforts to feed the hungry peoples of the world. Where will it end? Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee: There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. Itâ€s real, and thatâ€s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and thatâ€s why this is so important.

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997; Testimony before Congressional Committee:

And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.

Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: its Purpose and its Philosophy:

Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable. In the early 1950â€s, former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus â€handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old.†Huxley would lard the agency with a motley collection of Communists and fellow travelers.

President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding

Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.:

I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them…The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…

Ted Turner makes the radical statement that, A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,

Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, funded by the Rockefellers) said in her proposed The American Baby Code, intended to become law:

The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

**This is the woman (Margaret Sanger) whom Hillary Clinton publicly declared she looked up to, during the 2008 presidential debates.**

Here is a short list of some advocates of eugenics; Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb, William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, Sidney Webb, Sir Francis Galton, Charles B. Davenport Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace)...

Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other…One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a â€natural deathâ€â€¦we, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow…Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of Godâ€s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…the riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity…

Alexander Haig is quoted referring to the US State Department Office of Population Affairs, which was established by Henry Kissinger in 1975. The title has since been changed to The Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs:

Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nationâ€s access to nuclear energy technology&the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a firm believer in population control. yikes?

without discrete scanning, it's easier to punk (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373296)

Health issues aside...

When you put someone into the scanner, it's reasonable to assume the image the TSA agent sees on the screen is of the person standing inside. But with 10, 20, or how many people walking through a scan tunnel at once, it's likely a matter of time before someone figures out a way to jerk the equipment into thinking the guy 6 feet to his left has contraband on his person. Kind of like how a shoplifter will walk through the electronic sentry at the exit, just as someone else walks through; the odds are 50-50 an untrained flunky will think the shoplifter is the other person.

Call me old fashioned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373298)

... But I think if somebody wants to look in my bowels, they should at least have to talk to me first.

Financial opportunity here! (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373354)

I see a line of lead-lined clothing, or perhaps backscatter resistant underwear. I mean, if you *never* know when you're being scanned, you have to assume you're being scanned ALL THE TIME.

Didn't the former CEO of SUN say "get over it, you already have no privacy" --- if only he knew how right he was.

Re:Financial opportunity here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35373514)

While useful, I'd be more interested in seeing a line of products that not only obscure but interfere with the x-ray technique similar to how film can be overexposed.

We don't serve their kind here! (1)

brgomeistr (165406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373380)

Your droids.
They'll have to wait outside.
We don't want them here.

x-ray glasses for... bird watching? (1)

burnit999 (1845596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35373466)

Hm... looks like they are finally about to create real life 'x-ray' glasses. You can bet these will sell like hot cakes... I can just imagine how much radiation the average person will be exposed to when every perv has one. Five years from now the hottest people start dying from cancer at accelerated rates and everyone will wonder why.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?