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!

The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the they're-expensive-therefore-they-work dept.

Privacy 494

TheNextCorner points out a video that lays bare a glaring flaw in the TSA body scanners used in airports to detect weapons and explosives. In such scans, citizens are depicted in light colors, while metallic objects show as very dark. The problem comes when you consider that the images are taken with a dark background. From the transcript: "Yes that’s right, if you have a metallic object on your side, it will be the same color as the background and therefore completely invisible to both visual and automated inspection. It can’t possibly be that easy to beat the TSA’s billion dollar fleet of nude body scanners, right? The TSA can’t be that stupid, can they? Unfortunately, they can, and they are. To put it to the test, I bought a sewing kit from the dollar store, broke out my 8th grade home ec skills, and sewed a pocket directly on the side of a shirt. Then I took a random metallic object, in this case a heavy metal carrying case that would easily alarm any of the “old” metal detectors, and walked through a backscatter x-ray at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. On video, of course. While I’m not about to win any videography awards for my hidden camera footage, you can watch as I walk through the security line with the metal object in my new side pocket."

cancel ×

494 comments

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

Frost Piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271445)

I heard you can hide a gun in a Fleshlight and it'll get through.

Re:Frost Piss (0)

Kiraxa (1840002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271475)

by heard, do you mean you are a poor white kid unable to get any poon and thus resort to overpriced masturbatory aids?

Re:Frost Piss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271525)

I just wanted to join the Mile High Club.

Re:Frost Piss (2, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271957)

I'm not sure flying solo counts.

Re:Frost Piss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272139)

by heard, do you mean you are a poor white kid unable to get any poon and thus resort to overpriced masturbatory aids?

like niggers?

Re:Frost Piss (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271481)

Might work if you are Francisco Scaramanga.

Re:Frost Piss (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271745)

I heard you can hide a gun in a Fleshlight and it'll get through.

Yeah. Duh. Who wants to actually inspect the inside of one of those? Do you want the job?

Stop aiding (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271465)

the enemy by pointing out stupidity!

Re:Stop aiding (3, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271539)

the "enemy" is much smarter than 10000 bureaucrats being sold by a used car salesman

after all this decades enemy has sustained life for thousands of years in an environment most of our citizens would die in, in a matter of hours... they do have some tricks "up their sleeve"

Re:Stop aiding (2, Funny)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271583)

One day, a man tripped over a gopher hole. The entire TSA yelled, "OW! My ASS!".

Re:Stop aiding (5, Funny)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271609)

I really want to understand this joke.

Re:Stop aiding (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271725)

I really want to understand this joke.

It's a saying - "they can't tell the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground'

Re:Stop aiding (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271817)

The entire TSA can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.

Re:Stop aiding (4, Funny)

Moofie (22272) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272059)

I can certainly tell the difference between that joke and something funny...

Re:Stop aiding (0)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271635)

No, no, the words are...

"Ow my balls!"

--
BMO - IT'S GOT WHAT PLANTS CRAVE

Re:Stop aiding (4, Insightful)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271897)

Idiocracy is a most apt description of our political class...

Re:Stop aiding (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272081)

... after all this decades enemy has sustained life for thousands of years in an environment most of our citizens would die in, in a matter of hours... they do have some tricks "up their sleeve"

Yes, but its not being smarter. I'd say the smarter people relocated to more pleasant and more bountiful areas.

Being less open to change, or perhaps fearful of change, seems a better characterization.

U.S. Federal Government (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271469)

It's one ginormous cunt.

SSDD (5, Insightful)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271477)

As far as I'm concerned, all of this airport security--the cameras, the questions, the screenings, the searches--is just one more way of reducing your liberty and reminding you that they can fuck with you anytime they want. Because that's the way Americans are now. They're willing to trade away a little of their freedom in exchange for the feeling---the illusion---of security.

-- George Carlin

SSDD!? (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271699)

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of SSDDs! ...

... oh, wait, that's SSDDs. My bad.

But, well, I guess that still works -- that's essentially what we have now with the TSA in all our airports / bus stations / pants.

Anyone else care to dance the Charlie Foxtrot? It's awfully popular these days...

Re:SSDD!? (0)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271769)

a Beowulf cluster of SSDD

We herd you liek bullshit! So we put 365 days of bullshit into every single year of a millenium of bullshit. This way you can get bullshitted while you get bullshitted :P

Re:SSDD (0)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271955)

While the body scan is not perfect, it has a dissuasive role. A terrorist who knows he has a 50% chance to be uncovered and spend most of his/her life in jail may prefer to give up.

Re:SSDD (5, Interesting)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272023)

Sure. Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold, and effectively killing them, than all terrorist attacks of all history combined, and people who do the real harm get rewarded for it ("too big to jail"). I mean, it's not like people have this inate tendency to be hateful towards freedom and generosity -- it's just that that's all pretty much BS, and for all we know, every single terrorist was trained by the CIA, because that's what's needed to keep people in check and the actual wolves running wild. That surely would make more sense than the hilarious explanation you're offering. Thanks for the chuckle though.

Re:SSDD (4, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272033)

Exactly. Why bother to go on a suicide mission if something BAD could happen to you instead?

Re:SSDD (2)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272117)

> A terrorist who knows he has a 50% chance to be uncovered and spend most of his/her life in jail may prefer to give up

I'm probably responding to a troll, but you realize he also has a 50% chance of not being uncovered and blowing up and dying. Jail is the more pleasant option.

Re:SSDD (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272137)

A terrorist who is actually planning to blow himself up anyway would simply do so between the scan and the pat down upon detection—probably diving into the security line to maximize the casualties. The body scanners are thus completely and utterly ineffectual as a deterrent.

More to the point, the terrorists weren't afraid to bring box cutters onto an aircraft; the metal detectors were obviously not a deterrent. Based on that bit of history, what possible reason could you have for believing that this magic tiger-repelling rock will work better than the last one?

Re:SSDD (3, Funny)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272233)

Silence!

I keel you!

Test First (5, Insightful)

Rtarara (1806850) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271479)

Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some. Actually test the tech out next time, preferably with open field testing. Geeks can break most anything and it's best to see how they can BEFORE you implement the "important terrorist stopping scanner".

Re:Test First (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271537)

Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some.

Why would you do that when you can sell useless machines now and then sell slightly less useless machines again in a few years?

You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

Re:Test First (2)

Rtarara (1806850) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271567)

I just keep naively hoping that at some point they will try to at least make it seem like they are actually trying. Is that really too much to ask? Yes. Well darn...

Re:Test First (1, Interesting)

NicknameAvailable (2581237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271811)

Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some.

Why would you do that when you can sell useless machines now and then sell slightly less useless machines again in a few years?

You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

Their not useless, their causing cancer just as intended.

Re:Test First (4, Informative)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271875)

You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

The one thing I do not understand is why is this happening in so many countries. Is it that easy to get rich everywhere - just make ridiculous, useless, 6-figure machines? In London, there is not even a pat-down option if you are selected (so I am not flying out of there).
And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??

Re:Test First (4, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272053)

You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.

They ARE intended to do something else. Actually it's their main intent - to keep people simultaneously scared shitless and give them a feeling of security if they are nice and submissive.

And they work extremely well at this. Just look anywhere there are skeptics and you'll see people crying "as long as it keeps me safe on my flight from Omaha to Kansas City!"

Re:Test First (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272183)

Just look anywhere there are skeptics and you'll see people crying "as long as it keeps me safe on my flight from Omaha to Kansas City!"

And this is why we as the people who understand the technology must take the time to educate the masses about what it can and cannot do. And by that, I mean we have to club them over the head with the harsh reality that these things are no more effective than a dowsing rod at catching real terrorists.

Re:Test First (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271541)

Testing would have delayed the goal of making Michael Chertoff more money.

Re:Test First (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272153)

Thanks, was getting ready to google for this scumbag's name so I could make the same point!

Re:Test First (1)

spokenoise (2140056) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271561)

Pfft you and your testing.... how is the guy who mandated these devices from his own company [prev /.] supposed to make money sitting around actually testing stuff? And what is this 'open' business you speak of?

Re:Test First (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272159)

Geeks can break most anything

It's often more effective to intimidate the geeks. What are they going to do? Take revenge? Then they can be treated like terrorists. It's better to repeal bad laws.

Surprise it took that long (4, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271499)

The only surprising thing here is that it took so long for such an easy work-around to come to light. It's not that there are very few people working with those scanners on a daily basis, and I bet plenty of TSA front-line personnel will discuss those scanners and how they work with their friends.

Re:Surprise it took that long (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271565)

plenty of TSA front-line personnel will discuss those scanners and how they work with their friends.

What friends?

Re:Surprise it took that long (4, Insightful)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272021)

Even Gestapo officers had friends...if they knew what was good for them.

Re:Surprise it took that long (1)

slashmojo (818930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272095)

What friends?

s/friends/mother/

Re:Surprise it took that long (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271647)

It's like the emperor's new clothes...

Except people are afraid that they'll be locked away in Guantanamo Bay for showing people how to circumvent federal security measured put in place to thwart terrorists.

Re:Surprise it took that long (2)

Sneeka2 (782894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271933)

The only surprising thing here is that it took so long for such an easy work-around to come to light.

Exactly, come to light. The real terrorists have been doing this for years. And they have some ass kicking to do now, 'cause this little punk revealed the trick.

Re:Surprise it took that long (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271935)

this has been known for years and is actually documented in public peer-reviewed publications. however, the video demonstration makes the real-world practice clear what the scientific literature addresses only in principle. also note that this workaround affects the x-ray backscatter scanners more than the swoopy-doop millimeter-wave scanners.

Re:Surprise it took that long (3, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271991)

We were pretty sure that there was a problem with metal objects taped to the inside or outside of people's bodies when Adam Savage [arstechnica.com] walked through with two 12" razor blades. This story just provides an explanation of why the scanners don't work.

Re:Surprise it took that long (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272129)

It's not the only "trick". A friend has taken a knife in the cabin multiple times, simply by overlooking the knife when packing his musical instrument. The scanner operators simply don't notice the knife amongst the other metal.

Re:Surprise it took that long (3)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272155)

I bet you can hide serious knives (or other weapons) inside a saxophone. And indeed even very large instruments are routinely carried as cabin luggage.

Re:Surprise it took that long (1)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272231)

This vulnerability was already demonstrated on german TV, a good few years ago. The security expert who demonstrated it actually got enough material through for a nice thermite bomb, using a normal side-pocket of a jacket as well as his mouth.

wouldnt surprise me if this guy gets fined (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271523)

or arrested

by now im sure there is something written somewhere stating any attempt at circumventing any screening or detection device is against the law

Re:wouldnt surprise me if this guy gets fined (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271903)

Any attempt to discredit the TSA is going to get you charged by revealing a state secret.

Scanner image hoax (4, Informative)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271559)

Images purporting to show what TSA scanners actually get have been demonstrated to be fakes:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=154635.0 [prisonplanet.com]

Re:Scanner image hoax (4, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271613)

Any time you see a "scan image" that shows hair of any kind, it's fake.

The radiation penetrates clothing. Why would it not penetrate hair? Indeed, we all look lumpy *and* bald going through the scanner.

It was obvious the first time these images went 'round.

--
BMO

Re:Scanner image hoax (2)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271721)

There seems to be some confusion here. A lot of people think the inverted image shows the TSA is showing doctored images rather than showing us what the scanners actually show. As far as I can tell, the inverted image has never been released by the TSA or the scanner companies. They were part of a hoax suggesting the scanners can see more than they were letting on.

I don't think there's any reason to think images released by the TSA aren't real scanner images.

Re:Scanner image hoax (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271923)

The last person I'd ever trust for source material is the one who has the most to gain by lying.

Banks don't want you to call 911 if there's fraud on your account either; they want you to call them so it can be handled internally, so they can keep claiming that fraud isn't a problem.

Don't trust material that isn't independently verified. Period.

Day in court for pointing out the obvious (1)

WhiteStarTech (2559381) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271571)

The US government doesn’t like having flaws pointed out, if they can turn this on you they will.
However this scanner is only part of the plan and a gun will be more visible due to the nature of the device and how it works, a small metal tin is not a good test.

Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271619)

What if you put the gun inside the tin?

Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious (4, Informative)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271651)

How many guns were smuggled onto planes as part of 9/11 again? You could easily conceal a weapon in a tin that size.

His point is that a metal detector would've actually detected that tin, and allowed them to inspect the contents to see if contained something that might be used as a weapon, with much less impact on his privacy.

Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious (5, Informative)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271797)

Indeed all of the actual holes that were exploited on 9/11 were pretty much patched very early. The main holes being 1. Policies saying let hijackers do whatever they want, wait till they land to have them arrested. 2. the cockpit doors being weak. Even if the underware and shoebomber both succeeded (both of which succesfully being thwarted without the super overintrusive new TSA rules), air travel as a whole still has less total risks than driving to the airport. In the end soceity has to realize that to some extent we have to ballance control of horrible deaths. I would imagine there are far more ways that people die that could be prevented if we applied anywhere near the money we put into TSA post 9/11 than we saved in reality. There are no shortage of underfunded disaster control, rescue, fire departments, starving homeless etc... We also could improve the quality of life by putting things into schools, or encorage more science by funding NASA etc... Decisions inspired by sudden knee jerk fear are rarely good ones and often we forget the scale of what we are fighting against is actually very small.

Re:Day in court for pointing out the obvious (2)

martas (1439879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272119)

Nobody is surprised when a homeless man dies of pneumonia, or when thousands of teenagers commit suicide because of a toxic culture. These things aren't "scary", even though objectively they are much more horrible than the statistically insignificant deaths from terrorist attacks [in the US]. It's all about what is and isn't part of "the plan", to quote The Joker from the greatest part of that movie.

the solution (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271589)

The workaround for this is to have people turn at 45 intervals in the scanner so that you can catch them at every angle. Of course this will increase the time it takes to scan each individual which means you will need to buy more backscatter x-ray machines and hire more TSA employees to keep people moving through at the same rate.

Re:the solution (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272037)

And it will double the exposure (at minimum), or to adequately cover the interior and exterior surfaces of both legs, probably triple or quadruple it.

Next step: TSA body scanner twister. In the first shot, you have your arms and legs spread. Then one leg pulled up over your head with the opposite arm while the other arm sticks forwards. Then....

cancer protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271593)

So, we can now make cancer protection shirts that at least protect your sides. They could be dual use, too. You could sell them on /. as spook cloaking shirts so long as you point your one of your sides toward them.

Them terrorist will slip through anyway ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271599)

whenever the authorities want them to slip through.

[conspiracy mode on]
With Israeli security companies controlling American security, you just as well let everybody on board because
when the Likud-Neocons decide to shock the average American again to justify their Iran war, terrorist will miraculously defy all security measures.
[conspiracy mode off]

Re:Them terrorist will slip through anyway ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272055)

If Israelis were actually running American security, it would actually be WORKING. Ergo, you're nuts.

Metallic Body Paint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271605)

Has anyone tried covering themselves in metallic body paint (or just a large finger sign on the chest). Just curious if you disappear complete. Ie. whether you become a dis-imbodied head.

Interesting concept, may have to start selling it, think I'll call it "privacy shield".

Re:Metallic Body Paint (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271789)

"privacy shield", meet "no-fly list"...

what the tsa will actually do (5, Insightful)

prehistoricman5 (1539099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271607)

Since obviously a metal detector will detect that sort of thing, the tsa will now buy new millimeter wave/backscatter x-ray scanners with a traditional metal detector integrated into the system. The only reason they're going to give up their toys is because they can get better ones.

Re:what the tsa will actually do (1)

JudasPreist (2530344) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271799)

No, they'll simply implement a addendum to the law that requires each Victim turn completely around while in the scanner. Boom, work-around that simple. So next time you go plan for an extra half hour for each plane load of victims to turn in the right direction while in the scanner. Most capable TSA employee: "wait, do you turn TOWARDS your right arm, or AWAY from your right arm? Which is the right direction?"

Re:what the tsa will actually do (1)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271825)

I never understood why they didn't just stick a cheap metal detector in front of or behind the full body scanner.

Re:what the tsa will actually do (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271861)

cause they are retarded, going with the old "airbags are a total replacement for seatbelts" way of thinking

Re:what the tsa will actually do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271869)

I am sure some asshole has the patent for that.

Re:what the tsa will actually do (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272131)

No problem. One more person will get rich off of scared taxpayers' cash. The best thieves are the ones who know how and when to play nice [e.g. see Wall Street].

I don't care how effective they are. (4, Interesting)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271615)

They invade citizens' privacy, and because of that, I think they should be gone.

"For the children," "to stop the terrorists," "ban technology X because of the actions of a few," they're all the same thing. All that's needed is increased cockpit security and citizen awareness. No privacy violations are necessary or even wanted.

Re:I don't care how effective they are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271657)

It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel.

What has been done is done, it isn't going away. As our generations exit and new ones arrive, these things that seem so invasive to us will be 'normal' to them. There will probably be those that complain when the envelope is pushed further still, but what will it matter? Soon their generation will pass and the next will arrive.

People write letters to various politicians to complain, the politicians don't read them, and even if they did could any one politician stem the tide of the absurdity that abounds?

Let us pretend for a moment that the next elected President of the United States was against TSA full body scanners. Do you really think that they would go away? They wouldn't, I promise you that.

Re:I don't care how effective they are. (2)

FairAndHateful (2522378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271901)

It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel.

What has been done is done, it isn't going away.

This attitude is part of the problem.

FYI (0)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271663)

The scanner at my airport spins around you in 360 degrees. Also, it doesn't show any image to the personnel watching the screen right there. Just a pass/fail I suppose.

Delete the last to words of the sub title (3, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271675)

It should simply read, "The Ineffectiveness of the TSA"

what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271703)

Okay.

I don't believe this. This cannot be true. Its simply impossible for any culture that produces devices like this to exist. The culture would have to be too stupid to invent the screws holding the thing together! This is such a brain-blindingly hilariously awfully maniacally stupid thing that it can NOT exist. It can not! I tell you, it was the psychologists. They wanted to drive us mad to make money and steal all our Thetans. Our luscious, juicy thetans! And without the thetans, Xenu would buy all the pesticide in the world, destroying all the insects. No insects, no honey! No honey, no assembly system for anti-alien defences. They would then steal all our weather-control devices to dry up the loch ness lake and unleash it on the middle east, stealing all the oil in the process! It's all a coverup! ITS ALL A COVERUP!

So what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271759)

All you have managed to point out is what the TSA and everyone else with a remedial education already knew. The body scanners aren't metal detectors. They are detectors to show what does and doesn't belong with a normal human form. So you pointed out a flaw in the current method the use for screening. Maybe they will thank you for that but I doubt it. What is going to be done now is that the TSA will require you to go through the metal detector and the body scanner.

yup (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271765)

I was part of a team bringing forward a competing technology to those scanners (standoff biometrics, no weird imaging, ~5 different measurements, easy to beat one, hard to beat them all). We thought we had won the tests. At least, we found all the people sneaking stuff in during our test and we knew they couldn't have detected certain things - like explosives, which they still can't see.

Due to the nature of my sensor work, much of my clothing is covered in explosives residue. A good scanner should really pick me out every time, but I only ever get "caught" when I'm selected for random screening.

We were pretty surprised when we found out they were selected. I guess we should have worked harder on our lobbying and less on our engineering.

Re:yup (3, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271877)

do you have a proven track record of being able to produce 100 000 units? What's your typical cost/cost overun on a project that size?

Business is business. Engineering is part of business, but if you're advertising the greatest thing ever for 100 dollars that is supposedly 10x than what everyone else is selling for 1000 people are rightfully skeptical that you can actually deliver the product on time, and on budget. That doesn't mean you can't, and yes in any business advertising (or in the case of the US government lobbying) matters tremendously, but there can be non obvious factors at play.

As with anything you might really have been trumped by 'strategic concerns' (you weren't going to create enough jobs, in the right districts, or pay the right campaign kickbacks), but you might have just not seemed honest, being the only honest one in a room full of crooks.

The Theater of the Absurd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271787)

On display 24/7/365-6 @HomelandSecurity and @WhiteHouse.

Clowns, dancing donkeys, side-show freaks abound.

Kobe Shoes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271821)

Kobe 7 [kobebryantshoesmall.com] shoes are known as a hottest progression towards hoops comfortable shoes.
The prominent features of the Kobe Shoes [kobebryantshoesmall.com] is wearable sole and soft insole, waterproof material upper and professional running shoes structure that are trusted by many runners.
Welcome to our Kobe Bryant Shoes [kobebryantshoesmall.com] website to visit, it will be your best choice.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271839)

Now we're going to have to be scanned twice (scan, turn 90 degrees, scan)... Thanks a lot jerkwad!

They're helpless against fat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271895)

My very large brother in law told me and my wife that he could sneak anything we wanted on an airplane that didn't have an odor (i.e. no weed). So we gave him a bottle of xanax that he then proceded to stick in the crevice of where his gut folded down to near his genitals and sure enough he went on through the body scanner and they said nothing.

Moral of the story: If you're flying back home and have a layover in the US bring a fat friend to help smuggle your shit

Re:They're helpless against fat (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271967)

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want it back after it's spent 8 hours soaking up your brother in law's flap-sweat.

TSA is an expense account scam (5, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39271917)

The inquisition (yes, that one [malleusmaleficarum.org] ) was an expense account scam. Since the accused was required to pay for their own inquisition, the system simply padded the expenses to the limit of the available money.

The TSA is the same thing. People wail and moan about how stupid/intrusive/incompetent/useless they are, and miss the larger picture.

The TSA sends money to corporations, and the corporations grease the political wheels.

There's no rocket science, no ulterior motive, nothing else to consider. Like the inquisition, the TSA doesn't need to justify expenditures with usefulness or effectiveness. The more they spend, the more they get to spend. Cause and effect.

Why do you think they spend billions on technology, but pay only slightly above the minimum wage and spend so little on training?

People keep grousing about the TSA as if that will make a difference. It won't. They have been generally incompetent from the start, and there's nothing that people can do to unseat them from their position.

Voting hasn't helped. Contacting representatives hasn't helped. Complaining to the TSA or their employees hasn't helped. Legal action hasn't helped.

There's one obvious remaining course of action we can take to rein in all the government waste and corruption. Can anyone think of things to try before we take that last drastic step? I'm out of ideas...

Re:TSA is an expense account scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272073)

Why TSA still treats everyone like Bin Ladin? The master mind who causes TSA to start the whole security screening system has died. Maybe it's time to rethink the process of airport/ airline security.

Re:TSA is an expense account scam (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272103)

There's one obvious remaining course of action we can take to rein in all the government waste and corruption. Can anyone think of things to try before we take that last drastic step? I'm out of ideas...

Yes, but you're not going to like it. It involves people like you banding together to run for office, then passing laws banning all non-medical use of X-ray or millimeter wave imaging within the bounds of your community or state. If every state did this, the TSA and the companies it supports would eventually wither and die on the vine. Even if they started overturning the laws in the supreme court, after about the twentieth state passed such a law, they'd have their hands full in court for decades—a big enough money sink that it just might be enough to extricate their crania from their recta.

Remember: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Soap hasn't worked. Jury hasn't worked. Yet we as a society seem to have skipped over the most important one on our way to the fourth. Never forget the second.

If I were the TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271941)

I would get a better background.

A simple scheme really, a couple quick steps.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271953)

Step 1-Wait for a 'disaster' of some kind that can instill fear enough in the people to stop paying attention to the public and private sector!
Step 2-Media hype campaign to magnify the fear and grossly overestimate threat, create demand for new security solution.
Step 3-No-bid contract on supposed solution, iterate if really necessary, but just keep milking it.
Step 4-Profit!

Win-Win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39271959)

Should've just used the good 'ol magenta background. Of course, they would sometime have to replace employee because of burnt-out eyes, but hey, that'll create a constant flow of new job!

Win-Win!

What's your control here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39272067)

Interesting experiment, but how have you controlled for other problems with TSA.... maybe they just AREN'T LOOKING? It could be the technology is fine...

Printer support | Printer Repair (-1, Offtopic)

samirbashar (2590021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272099)

Get instant trouble printing from your printer, or scanning from your All in One. Use has driver issues, printing not proper, ghosting of print, paper jams, printing cancellation problem http://www.we24support.com/printer-support.html [we24support.com]

Security theatre (4, Insightful)

quarkoid (26884) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272151)

It seems obvious to me that the TSA knew the machines didn't work effectively, but that this didn't matter to them. Airport security isn't about making the skies safer, it's about scaring (some would even say terrorising) the public in order to give the government more power and control. In his video he even says that there was no threat with the old metal detectors...

There are so many ways one could commit an act of terrorism at an airport without getting on a plane if one were so inclined (I'm not, by the way!) and every time I fly I see more. The full body scanners do nothing to increase a person's safety.

Let's face it - the terrorists have won. The public are terrified. Sadly it's their own governments which have done the terrorising.

brother printers support (-1, Offtopic)

samirbashar (2590021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272161)

Call us at we24support brother printers support number at 1-866-978-0799,Enhance your system functioning and keep it clean with we24support services. http://www.we24support.com/brother-printers-support.html [we24support.com]

Re:brother printers support (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272219)

wrong thread ...

this should be posted here [slashdot.org] , since Mr Torvalds is the one having printing problems ....

canon printers support|canon printer tech support (-1, Offtopic)

samirbashar (2590021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39272217)

Call us at we24support canon printers support number at 1-866-978-0799,Enhance your system functioning and keep it clean with we24support services http://www.we24support.com/canon/canon-printers-support.html [we24support.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>