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!

In German Trials, Airport Body Scanners Easily Confused

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the bitte-to-be-straightening-dein-pleats-maedchen dept.

Australia 91

OverTheGeicoE writes "The German government just finished a 10-month test of millimeter-wave body scanners made by L3 Communications. It appears they are not happy with the results. The devices raise false alarms 7 times out of 10, and are confused by layered clothing, boots, zippers, pleats, and even incorrect posture. Australia recently started a trial, and the second person in at the Sydney airport set off the alarm repeatedly due to sweaty armpits."

cancel ×

91 comments

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

Ballmer (5, Funny)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005484)

sweaty armpits

Now you will never be able to deport Ballmer. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:Ballmer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37005550)

First you'd need to find a country which will actually take him without considering it a declaration of war.

Re:Ballmer (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005876)

Microsoft just bought Finland [nokia.fi] .

Re:Ballmer (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37008670)

BUT HOW WILL MICHAEL CHERTOFF PROFIT?

We need 100 percent coverage of airports by US mandated scanners, like... yesterday!

Screw your trials. Deploy our expensive scanning equipment, or we'll send more Oslo-style, Manchurian-candidates to your little chocolate and brioche countries.

Re:Ballmer (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37009260)

You can always just exile him. Then finding a home is on -his- shoulders!

Raise the stakes (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37005538)

The only thing to do when faced with one of these is to strip naked on the spot. Fuck 'em.

Re:Raise the stakes (0)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005878)

What with all the patting and stroking at airports these days, I think they'd be very happy if I did. Especially if I let them pat me and stroke me as well anyhow...

Re:Raise the stakes (-1, Troll)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006856)

Hmmm... No replies? A verifiable Real Girl (TM) turns up and posts a flirty comment and you guys all run and hide! It must be true what they say about this place...

Re:Raise the stakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006998)

1. It's morning on Saturday. I can't even be bothered to log in.

2. Fishing for attention requires bait. I believe the term is pics or GTFO.

3. I'd imagine with the way men are treated as sexual predators no man wants to touch you. However the women will happily molest all day.

Re:Raise the stakes (2)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007474)

LOL some good points in there.

1) Fair enough. I start my browser and go to "slashdot.org/login.pl" directly, then click submit.

2) The bait is in my posting history, I'm real, I'm verifiable, I'm female AND there's pics. Some peeps here have already found that out; I was kinda trolling them for compliments etc... sorry...

3) Wow. Never thought of it like that. Does this apply to all women now? Even if they "ask for it" like I did? Poor men. That can't be good for our collective mental health, and that is the only really serious thing I've posted today. I'm sorry.

Thanks for the reply, anyhow.

Re:Raise the stakes (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37009278)

Here's a tip: don't check the "public computer" option and the site will keep you logged in via a cookie. I haven't had to log in for... months?

4) Perhaps we just don't care for someone trolling for attention, whatever gear they happen to have between their legs?

Re:Raise the stakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37009496)

Wow. Never thought of it like that. Does this apply to all women now? Even if they "ask for it" like I did? Poor men. That can't be good for our collective mental health, and that is the only really serious thing I've posted today. I'm sorry.

The trouble with "asking for it" behaviour is that you attract all sorts, including the fat, sweaty, ugly, boorish, violent, manipulative, smelly, vindictive, psycopathic that you didn't want to attract in the first place.

Each to their own and all that, but you must realise that not everyone is modest and humble, especially not males of reproductive age. I'm not trying to condone their behaviour, just to explain it. It isn't acceptable to behave like that.

You'd be horrified and revolted if I came up to you and started to pat you down. So would my wife, but that's a different matter.

So if you are attractive and like to show off, and you enjoy it, that's your call and I hope you enjoy it. Just be aware that there are some pretty rotten people out there who will take advantage given any sort of opportunity.

Heck, when I was younger I kept getting hit on by gay blokes... never any women except the very occasional lunatic. I used to wish I was gay for a while until I met my wife.

Have I been trolled?

Re:Raise the stakes (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007286)

Hmmm... No replies? A verifiable Real Girl (TM) turns up and posts a flirty comment and you guys all run and hide! It must be true what they say about this place...

Sorry. But when I see "webmistressracheal" the first thing that pops into mind is an bumper sticker that I saw in a traffic jam that said "Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones But Whips and Chains Excite Me". The license plate read 'N2LTHR'.

That was a number of years ago but it is still fresh in my mind.

I'm not sure anyone else has had this sort of an experience, but when you have an evocative nic like yours, well, you just have to take the consequences.

Re:Raise the stakes (0)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007440)

Fair enough, lmao! Thanks anyway...

FYI, although I'm a goth, and I like collars (on me, not necessarily on someone else!) it originally referred to my web programming career at the time, so you shouldn't be too scared. But I have to admit that I also saw the other meaning, and liked it... Rachel

Re:Raise the stakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37019214)

So that means your a subbie pretending to be a mistress? Thats so cute!

Re:Raise the stakes (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010446)

It is true what they say about slashdot...but it's unverifiable. Hit me up on gmail/gchat/g+

Re:Raise the stakes (1)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#37008874)

I set off a false alarm the last time I flew, and got all the patting and stroking. But I couldn't figure out how much to tip for the service.

Actually I was so pissed off I was practically yelling at them. It was after the 3rd leg of an international flight, I'd been going for 24 hours straight, I was stinky and sweaty and the useless idiots at O'Hare delayed me so long I missed the connection for the 4th leg. I want the TSA budget cut in half, and I want this cowardly bullshit to end.

The backscatter scanners have actually lowered my personal safety. First, what was our ratio of hijacked flights to non-hijacked flights after 9/11? Zero. The system worked. By adding backscatter scanners, they decreased zero by how much? That's right, ZERO. Backscatter scanners are by definition 100% ineffective. They wasted $370 million dollars of my tax money on lining some corrupt politicians and manufacturer's pockets, instead of spending that money on real transportation safety features, like erecting stoplights at the 370 most dangerous uncontrolled intersections in America. I'm at much more risk of a car accident than I am of any kind of hijacking or bombing. They need to fix my real problems, not the imaginary ones they use to get votes from fucking cowards...mumble...god-damn politicians...grumble...

Not a happy ending. No tips were given.

Re:Raise the stakes (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37013008)

I set off a false alarm the last time I flew, and got all the patting and stroking. But I couldn't figure out how much to tip for the service.

Well, since the sub-text of all the complaints that I see - and since it's an American problem I anticipate not seeing it first-hand - is that some people feel as if they're being treated as "two bit whores". So surely the appropriate price for their services is ... two bits.

So, get your jollies, give them two "bits" and walk away, shaking your leg as if your rich aunt's small perverted dog has just been coming on your shoe. If they ask you what it's about, give them your best "cheeky bellhop" look, then a third "bit".

One of the 'bits' should be foreign, for maximum effect. Canadian or Mexican or whatever coins require a second look to distinguish them form native ones.

Re:Raise the stakes (1)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#37014130)

If you hear that I get arrested for trying this next time, please know I bear you no ill will. The laughs will have been worth it.

Re:Raise the stakes (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37024196)

But I've got no intention of wasting my time and energy travelling to America, so I can laugh at America's problems with undisguised contempt.

Have fun! And get out of Gilead while the getting is good.

Re:Raise the stakes (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37012068)

I've flow quite a bit in the last year, between ANC to SEA, ANC to PDX and ANC to LVS, and never have gotten the physical search. Not even when the new radar scanners found the biomedical device and wires in my body.

Re:Raise the stakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37009758)

It's been done, and the video is online. I believe it was even posted to Slashdot once.

No link for you today, though. I'll leave it to the horny hordes to find it for themselves.

Prayer for the fallen armpits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37005542)

Thy deodorant shall not abandon thee.

Re:Prayer for the fallen armpits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37005914)

Deodorant?

I think you mean antiperspirant.

Re:Prayer for the fallen armpits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37009738)

Most deodorants are actually antiperspirants with some scent thrown in.

Darn. Somebody fixed the post. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005596)

I was going to point out the repeated paragraph as an example of unintended "backscatter".

What technology is used by TSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37005622)

I can't seem to find exact details about what the TSA uses. Either my google-fu is failing or it's considered too strategically important information. :/

Anyway, I'd like to see a comparison and see why the Germans can't seem to make scanners viable but the US can. 'Cause something smells here (not that the whole TSA affair neeeds any more stink already.)

Re:What technology is used by TSA? (4, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005670)

I guess the TSA uses scanners which show the actual scan. In Germany, the scanner's software identifies potential objects and marks them on a schematic picture, so you're not seen naked on the screen. Humans are better at interpreting patterns, and more importantly they learn. After the first few times they've seen sweaty armpits on the scan, they'll probably recognize them. If the software misinterprets sweaty armpits as hidden objects the first time, it will do so for every person until eventually the software gets an explicit update to not misidentify sweaty armpits.

Re:What technology is used by TSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006086)

(Alas, this needs AC:)

Thanks for the hint, buddy! - I'll let my army of 100 sweaty-wet soldiers board the plane, and the 101st will have some liquid explosives smeared into her otherwise fully dried armpits. Let's check the attention span of the personnel.
Oh, so liquid explosives are rendered in a different colour? Fine. Then why is sweat detected as false positive in the first place??

Re:What technology is used by TSA? (5, Interesting)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006134)

Given that the Americans are insisting that these scanners are used globally[1], at least the Germans are concerned with the health and privacy of their citizens.

[1] and you thought the TSA situation stinks - now Washington is bullying the EU into using them too. Citation? RTFA

Re:What technology is used by TSA? (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007130)

But hey, 7 out of 10 false alarms? Isn't that the purpose of it? Making people believe someone is doing something for the "safety" of the passengers?

Re:What technology is used by TSA? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010184)

Given that the Americans are insisting that these scanners are used globally[1], at least the Germans are concerned with the health and privacy of their citizens.

[1] and you thought the TSA situation stinks - now Washington is bullying the EU into using them too. Citation? RTFA

Well, civil and human rights are Article 1 of their constitution... but anyways, it seems like this is less about privacy and health, and more about effectiveness. You know, those silly Germans insisting on things actually working well.

Re:What technology is used by TSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011152)

those silly Germans insisting on things actually working well.

The worldknown "Deutsche grundlichkeit".

Re:What technology is used by TSA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006366)

The manufacturer thought they were for the TSA so they built in lots of false positives. The TSA needs false positives so they can grope more - after all, they are just a bunch of pedophiles, rapists and pervert thieves. Grope your crotch, steal your ipad while you aren't looking.

AM I WRONG? No, it's funny because it's true.

Re:What technology is used by TSA? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005806)

... but the US can.

Citation needed.

Re:What technology is used by TSA? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#37013080)

Fear and Loathing (TM).

MIssion Accomplished (5, Insightful)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005654)

As far as I understand, the primary (and probably only) purpose of those scanners is to make their manufacturers a buttload of money. I think they're doing that perfectly fine, so it's definitely a success!

Re:MIssion Accomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37005760)

apparently the German police claim its not ready for deployment and they do not want these scanners
the politicians thought try to push it through...

Re:MIssion Accomplished (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005778)

Well the installation of them at airports allow said places to give the impression that they are doing something regarding those "scary terrorists". But yes, most of it is snake oil salesmen making it big on a assumed epidemic.

Re:MIssion Accomplished (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005818)

Well, it seems to work pretty effectively for that [criticalthinking.org.uk] , too.

Re:MIssion Accomplished (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006506)

I think I should start a company which sells metal doorways with the words "Scanner" written on them. They won't do anything, but I'll make a packet.

Re:MIssion Accomplished (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007560)

Well the installation of them at airports allow said places to give the impression that they are doing something regarding those "scary terrorists".

Yes, but that's not the purpose, that's just the mechanism to get the public to accept their tax money being used to provide handouts to the manufacturers.

Re:MIssion Accomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37007788)

Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth.

Huge market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37008534)

I didn't know there was such a huge market for machines that don't work. Someone in purchasing should be fired.

Re:MIssion Accomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37008694)

Not only.
Their primary purpose is to accustom people to total(itarian) surveillance and the delusion of the âoeconstant dangerâ. (Eurasia, Oceania? Which one was it? I forgot ...)

You could say, for that part of the government that wants this and for those companies, it's a win-win.

Re:MIssion Accomplished (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37009350)

It's certainly a good testing environment to see what people will tolerate, and the current research suggests that we're pretty keen about handing over our civil liberties in exchange for false security. These people are effectively strip searching innocent people, and have stated that if a child is old enough to stand then they'll get scanned. Naked fucking pictures of your children on the screen and this is just for run of the mill travel in the United States. Visible security tends to follow the trends set by some nut job Muslim with a hankering for explosions. For example, the requirement to remove shoes for passing through security became more common after the shoe bomber's exploits. The full body scanners are an attempt to deal with the obvious problem of it being rather easy to smuggle dangerous substances on to planes. To the next bomber I'd suggest they hide bombs in either their anus or their vagina - in fact make a habit of doing this. I'm curious to see whether or not the TSA would adopt mandatory cavity searches for all passengers?

Re:MIssion Accomplished (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011034)

uh huh huh you said buttload.

Re:MIssion Accomplished (1)

objectdisoriented (1973024) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011052)

Bush's original apointee to head the Department of Homeland Security is on the board of the company that produces the scanners. He says this has nothing to do with them going into airports.

I set it off with my sweaty balls. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37005744)

They thought it was two grenades covered in FROSTY PISS!

Not bragging, but (0)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005860)

I was stopped because they thought I was trying to smuggle a baby elephant in my pants.

Re:Not bragging, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37005894)

Turned out it was just a 9mm eh?

Re:Not bragging, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006174)

a baby elephant is called a calf not a shrimp.

Is your ass that fat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37007912)

n/t

Re:Not bragging, but (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 3 years ago | (#37009520)

You need to see a doctor.

Re:Not bragging, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37042178)

Next time hide the elephant in the FRONT of your pants.

Sweaty armpits? Seriously? (2, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#37005924)

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "sweating bullets", I guess.

-jcr

Sweaty armpits = terrist (0)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006240)

If he had nothing to hide, why was he so nervous? The system works!

Re:Sweaty armpits? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006556)

He should have poured his sweat into a transparent plastic bag just like everyone else.

Bad News for the Slashdot Crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006014)

"The devices raise false alarms 7 times out of 10, and are confused by layered clothing, boots, zippers, pleats, and even incorrect posture. Australia recently started a trial, and the second person in at the Sydney airport set off the alarm repeatedly due to sweaty armpits."

Layered clothing (body fat?), incorrect posture and sweaty armpits? Bad news for CmdrTaco. No wonder he takes the bus.

are these the same scanner in use in the usa? (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006104)

if so, i would find it interesting to see how the united states addressed the false positive issue.

Re:are these the same scanner in use in the usa? (3, Informative)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006224)

The Euro/Aus scanners don't show the direct image. It is processed to separate the "normal" (clothes and body) from "abnormal" (weapons), and then displays the "abnormal" against a generic silhouette. The idea is that the scanners will be easier to introduce into countries with stronger privacy laws/culture than the US. However, it seems to be fooled by variations in bodies and clothing.

TSA systems have human operators interpret the images directly. They quickly get used to ghosting and artifacts and stop issuing false positives. However, tests (official and otherwise) show that they also fail to detect actual weapons.

Re:are these the same scanner in use in the usa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006640)

I believe the TSA are partially adopting the generic image approach. Perhaps even Americans are realizing that something is broken when it becomes normal to have to show your genitals to a security guy before being allowed to board a plan.

Re:are these the same scanner in use in the usa? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006978)

I could have sworn you're correct. I think the article was on here recently.

Re:are these the same scanner in use in the usa? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007054)

I wonder if this is a technology or a human issue.

Humans simply aren't good at staring at a sea of harmless stuff and then spotting something dangerous.

I remember reading about a company that came up with an x-ray machine that had a game of sorts built into it. The scanner would periodically put a picture of a gun or a knife or whatever in the actual images of baggage, and the operator had to push a button to remove it. If the operator missed something then it would alert the supervisor to change out the operator. This gives the operator something to do so that they don't zone out. Obviously if you push the button and the gun doesn't go away then you have a problem to deal with.

Finally - this thing talks about mm waves - but I thought that the machines in the US were backscatter x-rays? The wavelength of an X-ray is WAY smaller than a mm. I could see how mm-wavelength radiation is going to be more easily fooled by wet clothes/etc.

Re:are these the same scanner in use in the usa? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007450)

Humans simply aren't good at staring at a sea of harmless stuff and then spotting something dangerous.

That seems to be it. Lots of false-alarms, few actual threats, is going to be difficult for either humans or machines.

Finally - this thing talks about mm waves - but I thought that the machines in the US were backscatter x-rays?

Doesn't the US use both? (Google says Wikipedia says LAX and SFO both have mm-wave scanners, so does the Trans-Hudson (PATH) train.)

Re:are these the same scanner in use in the usa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37007846)

Luckily for me, PATH did a trial but has not deployed them. I hope they never do. They should focus instead on improving service so that there aren't outages every other day with millions of people trying to get home...

Re:are these the same scanner in use in the usa? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011054)

detecting weapons is overrated.

Re:are these the same scanner in use in the usa? (1)

d0nju4n (807508) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007614)

That's where the "random" pat-down comes in to play.

Complaints (1)

qxcv (2422318) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006300)

As if these scanners needed to be more fun to play with [xkcd.com] .

What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (1)

brusk (135896) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006478)

I don't have a position on whether these scanners are better or worse than the alternatives, but a 70% false positive rate is not necessarily a bad thing. What people forget is that false positive/false negative rates are dependent on the underlying rate of occurrence of the phenomenon you're looking for. Say you create a test for a disease that has a false positive rate of 0.1% for people who don't have the disease (which is excellent!). If the disease is extremely rare, say 0.1% occurrence rate in the population tested, about half the people who test positive will in fact not have disease. Whereas if 10% of the population has the disease, only about 1% of the positive tests will be false positive. Not because the test is any different, but because the underlying rate is so much higher. So without knowing what the underlying rate of people bringing inappropriate items through security is, the 70% number is hard to interpret.

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (5, Insightful)

NixieBunny (859050) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006492)

I think the rate of actual terrorists is .000000001%, so essentially all positives are false positives.

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006948)

That's terrorist talk there buddy.
You and your false sense of security will kill us all.

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (1)

mseeger (40923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37006510)

According to what i read in the local newspapers here in Germany, the systems raised an alarm at 7 out of 10 people passing through them.

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006942)

And not a single terrorist has ever been caught by a scanner.

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37007994)

See, it works! Acts a a deterrent, making the terrists become more clever.

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007372)

According to what i read in the local newspapers here in Germany, the systems raised an alarm at 7 out of 10 people passing through them.

Sounds about right. They're probably American machines. Most of the people in a German airport would be Germans. Thus foreigners to the machine's inbuilt intelligence and worthy of a beep or two.

GO USA!

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011072)

Oh please. Everybody knows nothing is manufactured in the U.S.

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37012082)

Everybody knows nothing is manufactured in the U.S.

Acura, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Toyota all build vehicles in the U.S. But you're right, noting is manufactured here.

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37013038)

I thought that Micro$oft were one of the US's biggest companies exporting huge-amounts of US-manufactured Fear (TM), Uncertainty(TM) and Doubt(TM).

Re:What does "seven out of ten" mean here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37007798)

I don't know where you think read that these machines have a 70% false positive rate. That wasn't in any of the articles I read.

The articles (and the summary) said that the machines give a false alarm 70% of the time. When someone goes into these machines, seven out of ten times the machine will alert. Since there are about 2.75 billion airline passengers per year, and about 0.5 terrorist attempts per year, this means the false positive rate is about 99.99999997%

That's it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37006686)

The next time I have to fly I am just going to wear a thong, flip flops, and a long jacket. When I refuse to be scanned and they start to search me, the jacket is hitting the ground and I am going to stand there in my 100% legally allowed glory. Since I will have my genitals fully, yet thinly covered, there is nothing they can actually do to me legally.

Really, if you have nothing to hide, why are you wearing all those clothes?

Cargo pants (1)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 3 years ago | (#37007096)

I've only taken one trip since the new bodyscanners, but the first time through, I got hit with a false positive. The source of the problem: I was wearing cargo pants, with the pockets on the sides, and the bodyscanner couldn't see past the pocket. So I was taken aside, and given a manual pat-down in addition to the bodyscanner.

Glad I showed up early to the airport that day. These things just contribute to the delay of taking a flight.

zomg, make everywhere as safe as airports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37007940)

Obviously most contemporary terrorists have a hard-on for Allah and his little goblins, but they also seem addicted to doing bad shit to plans and airports. Each time a TSA agent cups your balls, they're bringing airports a step closer to being totally safe. What do we do when terrorists realize that there are targets that aren't airplanes? We need the TSA to apply their strategy to everything. I for one will have a far safer dining experience at fast food joints if I've have my cock checked. Picture the smiles on the faces of parents as they play their part in the safety of McDonalds by waiting calmly while some guy in a side-office appraises naked images of their pre-pubescent daughter. Everything I say should be taken literally and blown out of proportion. A guy jokingly mentioning having a bomb would be seen by TSA enforcers as being little different to some militia nut issuing demands through a bullhorn while keeping a shaky thumb over the detonator button. Of course a simpler option for security could be to dismantle the orwellian bullshit assembled by Bush, and allowed to continue under Obama, and try to return to some level of civility and acceptance that the increased security has diminishing returns but an incredible cost, both financial and in terms of civil liberties.

Re:zomg, make everywhere as safe as airports (1)

splutty (43475) | more than 3 years ago | (#37008008)

Thanks,

You made me chuckle :)

7 out of 10 are false alarms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37008692)

WTF? That's fsckin' worse than random. Invert the output and the false alarm rate drops to 3 out of 10.

Pointless title goes here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37008918)

Germany gets the nude-scanning cancer machines?
And I thought they were done with the Nazi era... Guess not.

the real purpose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37008936)

"The function of any security checkpoint is to show who's boss." - Richard Ben Cramer

Electrolyte-covered paired spheroids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010026)

http://www.google.com.br/#hl=en-US&q=electrolyte+spheroids+paired&oq=electrolyte+spheroids+paired&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e

He was guilty! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010624)

He wouldn't be sweaty if he wasn't hiding something!

Only guilty people sweat!

don't sweat the terrorism (1)

mr_walrus (410770) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010656)

sweaty armpits in the close confines of an airplane *is* terrorism.
he should not be allowed to board :)

Both types of scanners are dangerous to health (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37012130)

The THz (terahertz) scanners are dangerous because THz radiation causes DNA to de-hybridize spontaneously in the chromosomes.

The X-ray back-scatter scanners are dangerous because they are ionizing and increasing your risks for skin cancer as your skin is given a dangerously concentrated dose.

I used to do radiation effects for DOD. The folks making the claims about risks got the math and radiation physics very, very wrong.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?