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 - Now With Surveillance Camera Footage

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the don't-scan-me-bro dept.

Privacy 219

McGruber writes "Jonathan Corbett, the subject of the earlier Slashdot Story: 'The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners,' has an update for us. His video showing him wandering through a nude body scanner with undetected objects is now complete with the feeds from TSA's security cameras at the checkpoint."

cancel ×

219 comments

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

Too lazy to do more research (-1, Redundant)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392521)

How'd he get the security camera footage?

Re:Too lazy to do more research (4, Informative)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392537)

You would know after just 10 secs in the vid...

Re:Too lazy to do more research (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392549)

Or 1.20 that is to be completely true.

Re:Too lazy to do more research (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40392753)

True, but it was a really hard to watch video. The guy is clearly nuts. He goes on and on about "nude scanners". If he wants to be taken seriously he should speak seriously and not "spin" things. I think I got about 1 minute in before I gave up and closed the video.

Re:Too lazy to do more research (5, Informative)

tsaoutofourpants (2615595) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393045)

The equipment uses EM radiation to create an image of your body without your clothes with significant detail and clarity... what would *you* call them?

Re:Too lazy to do more research (5, Funny)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393145)

Freedom scanners?

Re:Too lazy to do more research (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393227)

Terahertz wave scanners, while perhaps dry it's the correct technical term and due to a number of reasons humans absolutely love formality, even more so if they are in any station associated with power.

Re:Too lazy to do more research (3, Insightful)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393689)

Terahertz wave scanners, while perhaps dry it's the correct technical term and due to a number of reasons humans absolutely love formality, even more so if they are in any station associated with power.

What planet are you from? Most humans HATE formality, it's only scientists, autistics, and a couple of other weirdos that like it.

How many times have you heard your dad ask your mom to move her "2.0L 2005 Honda Accord ES sedan" out of the driveway so he can pressure-wash the concrete?

How many times did you ask your parents if you could play your "Nintendo Entertainment System" for half an hour after your nightly bath?

Do you send a text to your girlfriend to tell her you will be late because "Interstate 675" is backed up, or because "675" or "the beltway" or "the highway" is backed up?

How many times have you heard President Obama announced as "President Barack Hussein Obama II," or Dubya as "President George Herbert Walker Bush?"

No, people hate formality - it takes too goddamn long. Hence, "body scanners" or "nude scanners" over "full-body terahertz wave scanners." And "nude scanners" just helps to differentiate from a walk-through metal detector, since that is also a "body scanner."

Re:Too lazy to do more research (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394255)

Dubya is just George Walker Bush. His father is George H.W. Bush. Also, the Republicans Love using Obama's full name (minus the President and the II) as part of their little "paint the guy as a Muslim" campaign of deceit. That said, I agree with your other points. BTW, the correct term is "porno scanner", not "nude scanner". The latter sounds too benign. Just FWIW. :-D

Re:Too lazy to do more research (1, Informative)

ICLKennyG (899257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394269)

How many times have you heard... Dubya as "President George Herbert Walker Bush?"

Well considering that 'Dubya' is President George Walker Bush (43, Pres. 2001-2009, A.K.A. George W. Bush, Shrub, The Decider, or "Mission Accomplished") and his father is President George Herbert Walker Bush (41, Pres. 1989-1993, A.K.A. George H.W. Bush, Bush Sr., or "Read my lips, no new taxes") it would make sense that the answer to that question would be never.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush [wikipedia.org]

Re:Too lazy to do more research (2)

shadowofwind (1209890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394393)

People like formality when they can use it to wield power while evading responsibility. Its not Joe that's stonewalling, its the Engineering Change Control Committee (which happens to be controlled by Joe). Also people like formality when it strokes their own egos. For example, Lebron James always refers to The Game of Basketball during interviews, instead of just calling it basketball, as if we would be confused otherwise. Likewise with Joe, who feels pretty special being in control of the ECCC.

Re:Too lazy to do more research (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394169)

Terahertz wave scanners, while perhaps dry it's the correct technical term and due to a number of reasons humans absolutely love formality, even more so if they are in any station associated with power.

Actually they are not Terahertz. They operate in the microwave band.

For obvious reasons the TSA would not like this widely known.

.... insert oven joke here ...

Re:Too lazy to do more research (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393281)

That is a good one.

I dislike the scanners as much as most other normal people, and it seems the evidence suggests they are ineffective. But the constant complaining about being seen naked puts me off and I don't care to be associated people who are obviously either overacting the part or have legit mental issues related to their body. That some anonymous boob who couldn't find a better paying job sees a digital representation of my cock, does not bother me at all. In fact, if he wants to print out the photo I'll happily autograph it. It isn't that my cock is somehow spectacular looking, it actually looks a lot like other cocks I have seen. Which is the point: most everyone looks roughly the same naked and whether or not a radio wave scanner digitization is available just about everyone can guess about what you'd look like naked using just the clues provided by your clothed body.

Yes, maybe you have 3 nipples and don't want anyone to know. Maybe, like an ex girlfriend of mine, you seem to have no nipples at all. Or you hang to the left or some similar triviality. In the long run you'd be a lot better off just not worrying about who might know those inconsequential details about you.

But the scanners are still stupid for other reasons.

Re:Too lazy to do more research (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393413)

Your comment reminds me of the Dave Chapelle sketch where he tells an attorney he can describe Michael Jackson's alleged penis even though he has never seen it.

"there's a head, a shaft, some balls, hair - maybe pressed, permed hair, with glitter sprinkled on it"

Just like the rest of us.

Re:Too lazy to do more research (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393801)

Yeah, I mean are these guys scared to take a shower at the gym? Once you get out of grammar school someone else seeing your wiener is not a big deal.

Seriously, can you imagine the massive amounts of cocks n titties the TSA people see? After about two weeks they've seen it all, just like the Mexican guy who mops the floor in the locker room. I guarantee that guy does not give a fuck about your dick.

On the other hand getting blasted by radiation every time I need to take a flight does worry me. So I still think the TSA and it's cancer machines need to fuck off but the "zomg a strange man saw my penis" angle comes off a bit immature.

Re:Too lazy to do more research (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393873)

"Some stranger can see your wiener" - works on religious folk
"It could increase the chance of getting cancer" - works on organic buyers
"It doesn't fucking work" - works on slashdot

Re:Too lazy to do more research (2)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393321)

Highly profitable. Failure also helps profitability, just ask Gates and Ballmer, it's called upgrades.

Re:Too lazy to do more research (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393769)

"The guy is clearly nuts. He goes on and on about "nude scanners". If he wants to be taken seriously he should speak seriously and not "spin" things."

I loathe Alex Jones, but they are. The images are perfectly visible images of a nude human body, there are plenty of incidents where the TSA has been caught chuckling at images of buxom women and teenagers.

Re:Too lazy to do more research (1, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392545)

FOIA, apparently. WTFV.

Cool video (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40392563)

Lol, nice. Of course the software the L3 scanners use doesn't show any 'nude' pics anymore, the TSA just gets the warning from the software if it thinks there is a weapons with a generic outline of a human form with an arrow. They used to keep the nude images in a remote room but the last software release I am aware of ditched that too. Ironically, when the software was updated the worry was that it would be less effective and it seems they might be correct. However, were I planning to smuggle something on the plane myself I would hardly count on the scanner not picking it up.

Re:Cool video (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40392583)

This is why we need body cavity searches. It is the only way we'll be safe.

Re:Cool video (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392755)

no, they need to take off, and nuke the airport from orbit.

Re:Cool video (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392783)

everyone should remove their clothes and nude the airport from orbit!

Re:Cool video (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393781)

This is why we need body cavity searches. It is the only way we'll be safe.

You missed an important part -- who gets searched.

Good airport security will not be reestablished until every TSA worker and supervisor in passenger and baggage screening is subject to a body cavity search at the start and end of every shift. That's the only way to prevent TSA theft.

Re:Cool video (1)

one cup of coffee (1623645) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394011)

I like where you're your going, but why stop there, vivisections of all passengers is the only way to be sure.

Re:Cool video (5, Informative)

tsaoutofourpants (2615595) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392791)

Video creator here. I actually did it with both the new L-3 ATD (the kind where they allegedly do not look at the nude pictures the machines generate) and the Rapiscan backscatter x-ray where they still visually examine your nude body. The vulnerability I identified applies to both technologies.

Re:Cool video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393477)

You'd be my new hero if there wasn't this slight worry on my mind. How come you're still not on the no-fly list? Why are you REALLY working for? And what is your job?

Re:Cool video (5, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393761)

The best part of the untold truth is that any intelligent adult can pull off acts of terror that could kill hundreds if not thousands of people...... without going near an airport.

Please don't make me brainstorm for all you mindless people wondering what I mean. Big groups of people can be found all over the place.... you can imagine how right I am, or not.

The truth is, the sheer benevolence of our humanity is why most of us are alive. Most people wouldn't kill others if not in defense, and so we are alive. It doesn't take a genius to see what *could* happen, but *doesn't* happen. We are lucky to be so well protected by our nature. The police, TSA, your dad, or your God will have little impact on your safety.

Re:Cool video (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393809)

You don't even need a big group of people. A cook and QA person within any food processing factory would be enough.

Hit McDonalds ketchup supply chain with something that takes a day to be visible in the host. They'll shut it down quickly once detected but you could still impact a very large number of people.

Re:Cool video (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394323)

Please don't make me brainstorm for all you mindless people wondering what I mean. Big groups of people can be found all over the place....

Yes, but have a bomb-repelling rock that protects me when I walk down a crowded city street, so I'm only concerned when I get on an airplane....

Re:Cool video (2)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393991)

I was actually looking at the information provided to the screeners on Monday. I had cargo shorts on, and it did flag my side pocket which had excess fabric. It almost looks reasonable compared to the previous information. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the original images are still being recorded, although there should be a little greater anonymity to it now.

Still doesn't change the fact that the technology can't really work without excessive radiation, nor the fact that it does nothing to enhance security or safety of the flying public.

sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40392607)

I mean America was always kind of overrated but Sept. 11th really finished it off. Now the constitution is just an annoying old scroll that congress has to work around rather than an important document to be valued and upheld.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (1)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392745)

In other words, we jumped the shark with fricken lasers!

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40392831)

No, the American People ruined America after 11th Sep by letting Congress (and their state and local governments, who use the same excuses) act unchecked.

“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Attributed to Thomas Jefferson says the Internet.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393035)

We are attentive. Many are aware of the corruption, greed, etc. It is not limited to the U.S. though. These are international companies screwing up any government that will bend over for a buck.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393749)

We are attentive. Many are aware of the corruption, greed, etc.

"Many"? I very, very highly doubt that. I've noticed quite a few people don't support the TSA anymore, but after 9/11, knee-jerk reactions were rampant. The Patriot Act, idiotic wars, the TSA... all of them just slipped through.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (4, Insightful)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393085)

No, the American People ruined America after 11th Sep by letting Congress (and their state and local governments, who use the same excuses) act unchecked.

I'm sorry, but I've got to ask... what exactly were you thinking the American people should have done? Vote for the other party that does whatever they want when they're in power? Write some letters that aren't accompanied by nice lobbyist cheques?

Let's face it. There isn't anything legal their citizens could really do. Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change (and yes, shutting down or preventing the paranoid state is radical). Only problem with that is the people are happy enough, enough of the time that they won't go to war against their government over the periods they're not happy.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393569)

I'm sorry, but I've got to ask... what exactly were you thinking the American people should have done? Vote for the other party that does whatever they want when they're in power?

Well, I'm glad you only have two parties. Best democracy ever.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (4, Insightful)

willy_me (212994) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393927)

Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change (and yes, shutting down or preventing the paranoid state is radical). Only problem with that is the people are happy enough, enough of the time that they won't go to war against their government over the periods they're not happy.

I'm afraid not. Protests are far more effective for getting changes enacted. Revolts, like we saw in the middle east last year, can produce change but they also result in many undesirable consequences. They are simply too destructive.

If you could mobilize a couple million people to march on Washington every weekend for a couple of months - the TSA would be no more. The problem is that most Americans want the TSA - they make them feel safe. Personally, I think they're stupid but that doesn't change the fact that the TSA are here because the American people want them. Want to get rid of the TSA - educate the population. These videos will go further towards getting rid of the TSA than anything the author could do with a gun.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (2)

tftp (111690) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394631)

If you could mobilize a couple million people to march on Washington every weekend for a couple of months - the TSA would be no more.

I don't like TSA, but I will not join your march, simply because I'm too far away. Flying there every weekend is not an option, even if TSA would have made an exception for protesters.

You have to gather the whole crowd in situ - and that is not easy. You cannot expect that every 10th polled person will gladly join you. In general I have to agree with the GP - people haven't suffered enough yet. Take the social security away, though, and you will surely have a revolt on your hands.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (3, Interesting)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394315)

Let's face it. There isn't anything legal their citizens could really do. Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change...

Well, they could vote. In many if not most major races, there actually are third party candidates.

The biggest enemy of the American people is not their lack of possible legal actions -- they could easily vote most of these people out of office. The problem is that most of the public has been brainwashed to believe that they should only vote for "someone who can win," which generally only means someone of two parties. If you change that perspective, you immediately could shake up most of the government.

But if you can't even convince people that their leaders are bad enough to vote outside the two-party system, there's no way in hell you're going to get them to arm themselves in insurrection. This is just a stupid argument, because way before you could get a real revolt going, you could certainly convince people to start voting yahoos out of office... by perfectly legal means.

Even within the two parties, they could actually show up to things like caucuses, hang around and get nominated as delegates to state parties -- like, for example, the Ron Paul people have done in a number of states. (For the record, I'm not a Paul supporter, but I admire what his folks are doing.) The Republicans appear to be fighting the Paulites tooth-and-nail at local conventions to disenfranchise them, but they can only do so much. The Paul people have taken over state parties in a number of states. You can bet that those libertarian officials will at least have an impact on state politics, and we have yet to see how much of a hoopla they can raise at the national Republican convention.

Will this completely change the Republican party? I don't know. But there's a reason the mainstream Republicans have downplayed Paul at every turn... he doesn't play by their rules. He's not a "player." He has views that don't change for the most part. He consistently tells things like he sees them, rather than making crap up that people want to hear. I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say, but his efforts show that someone who has the right charisma can make a big impact... we'll have to see how far he goes.

Anyhow, there are lots of legal things the citizens of the U.S. could do. It's not like there are laws preventing you from voting for someone other than a Democrat or Republican. The problem is just convincing enough people that it's worthwhile -- which, again, would be a heck of a lot easier than inciting them to insurrection... so start with getting them to just show up to a voting booth first, rather than staying home and watching the lastest episode of reality TV or whatever the heck it is that people do. After you get them to the voting booth, you can invite them out to your militia or whatever the hell it is that you do.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394771)

People overthrowing their government has never happened ever in the history of the world, those damn sofas are just too damn comfy.

It's always funny to see people complain about 'the people' not being able to do anything, when all that is required is a massive demonstration of enough people.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (4, Insightful)

bjwest (14070) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393109)

That was the whole point. We're broke, and still spending money on our war machine, living in fear, thanks to the media, and well on our way to becoming a police state. The 9/11 attack was damn near 100% successful, and if we keep on our current track, it won't be long before it's at 100%. It doesn't matter if we destroy the perpetrators of the attack if they're goal is achieved, we still loose.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393261)

You're only loose because you repeatedly bend over and take it :)

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393889)

You are almost right. There is a bit of information missing. We are not ALL broke. The issue is right here in America. Some people is making a lot of money with all the events since Sept. 11th, the scare tactics, and the wars. And these are the same that lobby congress so things keep going like they are. The issue is that their interests are opposed to the interest of the common citizen. It is not about catching the bad guys anymore, it is about a small percentage of the population making billions while keeping everybody in check through fear, economic uncertainty, and loss of civil liberties.

Re:sept. 11th really ruined the U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393179)

Yeah, I really wish Bush didn't do 9/11 to make us go to war in Iraq. The Republicans ruined everything great about this country just to make money.

The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40392895)

After watching the original video some months ago, I had my first confrontation with the nude body scanners in May. I initially wasn't sure if opting out would be easy or hard, but when I saw the woman in front of me (with a toddler in her arms) have the cardboard cutout in front of the "out of service" metal detector moved, I thought "Well, it's just as easy as asking for that."

However, when I requested to not use the scanner, I wasn't allowed to walk through the metal detector despite asking for it (it worked; I saw the lights flashing on it). I was told to wait where I was for a pat down. When the TSA worker walked me to the screening area, he politely told me what he was going to do before he did it, and proceeded to feel along my arms, waistline and chest/back. However, when he went to do my legs, he went straight up from my ankles to my crotch, squishing my genitals into my perineum (I was wearing loose sports shorts). I jumped up a flash of panic, and he told me to stay still, because he was going to do it again on the other leg!

I've traveled across the globe and gone through many security processes (including Israel, where I was subjected to a strip search), and this was by far the most invasive, mortifying experience I've ever had. I found myself sitting by my gate feeling ashamed of what just happened, and suddenly I I understood where those cheesy-seeming accounts of molestation/fondling victims really come from. I've never understood, until now, just how it feels to be groped unwillingly, and how those emotions feel exactly as they are described by sexual assault victims. It's a sick feeling you get in your stomach when someone does something to you without your permission, and you are helpless to stop them. I learned that from the TSA.

I'm not comparing the magnitude of my experience to those of rape victims or children that have been abused, but just the fact that going through a security screening at an American airport jars memories of those horror stories is enough for me to take action and support Jonathan Corbett's cause, and I hope you do, too. The TSA has other methods for security, and is choosing to continue with these naked pictures/shameful patdowns despite public outcry, and it wouldn't be American to not do something about it.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393103)

I rather enjoy getting my balls smashed into my perineum. Why pay a whore when I can just go through security at my local airport?

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393361)

I'm a professional cyclist and I get paid to squash off my perineal blood supply and nerve, until my penis goes numb. I tried to get a saddle that avoids this but our new sponsor doesn't have one that works.

Luckily this jobs pays well.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393271)

Next time just pop a viagra before your flight and get your pat down with a stiffy and a huge smile on your face. See how enthusiastic the TSA agent is on his next groping. The emotions you feel are all about having power taken from you. Take that power back. Show them who is really in charge of your body and do it proudly.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (4, Insightful)

the_scoots (1595597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393293)

Imagine the embarrassment if you were transgender.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (2)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393305)

I've been taking the train ever since the latest changes.

It costs more, it takes two days and several hours to my usual destination, it leaves me with a longer distance from the nearest stop to my final destination and gets in at 3 in the morning.

On the plus side, it's actually fun.

It will not, however, work for the next time I want to visit Iceland.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393947)

I wish I could remember the project's name, but there will be a railroad between the U.S. and eastern Asia (Russia?) someday in the future.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (5, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393337)

The TSA has other methods for security, and is choosing to continue with these naked pictures/shameful patdowns despite public outcry, and it wouldn't be American to not do something about it.

If 10 people make the attempt at different airports throughout the country, and detection rate is 95%... the odds of at least one of them slipping through is 37%. Now, who here thinks the TSA screeners are that good? This guy's contention is that they are substantially worse.. and he's probably right. And food for thought: Even if the detection rate was 99%, it would only take 69 people to have a 50/50 chance of getting an illicit item on board. How many terrorists are (allegedly) out there again? If you do the math, the 16 terrorists that caused 9/11 and the resulting economic downfall have cost us maybe $100 billion each.

"Try smuggling this on board along with 69 other people, and you've got a 50% chance of causing The Great Satan 1.4 billion US dollars worth of economic damage."

That's an excellent promotion when you consider you've only got a 3.2% chance of dying in the process. We should be thankful terrorists suck at math. :\ If our own soldiers were this effective at causing economic damage, we would be very feared indeed. Unfortunately, we play by the rules. Our enemies don't.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393583)

Most of the terrorists that done any successful attack against western targets have almost always been engineers. Something engineers don't suck at is math.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393609)

Unfortunately, we play by the rules.

Of course you do. Of course you do.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393861)

Unfortunately, we play by the rules.

Of course you do. Of course you do.

Hey, whaddya want?

We didn't carpet-bomb Iraq or Afghanistan with H-bombs and turn them into glass parking lots for Disney-Middle-East, nor did we drop enough nerve gas to float a cruise ship across in either country.

Sheesh!

You just can't make some people happy.

No matter how much napalm you use!

Strat

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393877)

You have some very strange ideas about the objectives of the 9/11 terrorists. It is extremely unlikely they cared at all about causing economic damage to the United States. Read The Looming Tower [wikipedia.org] if you want to learn about their motivations. (Mostly, they just wanted the United States out of the Middle East... which does not appear to have worked out too well for them.)

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393919)

To be honest, they could try to smuggle explosives (as crazy as it sounds).

If.. they were not allowed to pass through security, they activate the device and make economical damage to all the systems, may kill many people in the line (considering the massive congestion these check points generate), and of course, completely sabotage the airport schedule (depending on the airport may cause all manual operations for some time).

On the other hand, well, they may be able to smuggle the explosives.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394199)

Not sure how you did your math, but wouldn't 10 people each with a 5% chance of success have close to 50% overall success? With a 1% success rate, 100 people would have close to 100% success and you'd only need 51 people for 50%.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394237)

Not sure how you did your math, but wouldn't 10 people each with a 5% chance of success have close to 50% overall success? With a 1% success rate, 100 people would have close to 100% success and you'd only need 51 people for 50%.

You failed statistics. x over y where x is the chance of success and y is the total number of attempts. If it's a percentage, y is 100, otherwise y is the total possibilities. Multiply that by the number of occurrances. so (x/y)^z in C notation.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (2)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394277)

probability of detecting all 10 if probability of detecting one is 95% = 0.95^10 = 0.60
so, probability that at least one gets through = 1 - 0.60 = 0.40 (40%)

probability of detecting all 69 if probability of detecting one is 99% = 0.99^69 = 0.50
so, probability that at least one gets through = 1 - 0.50 = 0.50 (50%)

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (2)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394381)

With a 1% success rate, 100 people would have close to 100% success and you'd only need 51 people for 50%.

So, wait a sec... you're telling me If I flip a coin with 2 sides twice, I'm guaranteed to get a heads?!? If I have a 6-sided die, and I roll it 6 times, I'm guaranteed to get a 6?!?

I need to book my flight to Vegas now. I've finally got that foolproof strategy to win at games of chance!

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394609)

The people working in airports could easily smuggle anything without going through the machines. Pilots and crew do not go through the scanner. These scanners are there for purposes unknown to 99.99% including the monkeys that operate them. they are designed to subject people to radiation that that isn't measured by anyone, to have you in position of "criminal", to have you obey regardless of situation, and to instill fear. but there's likely a more important reason.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393527)

I had a similar experience, but not in the USA. It was just prior to getting onto a flight from Prague to JFK in April. Two different security people searched me - once in public, then 2 minutes later behind a screened area. Both times, my balls were pressed up.
Nothing was different in the technique used, just 2 different people.

I had the same feeling of being violated. It was worse than when I was sexually harassed at work, but it only lasted 5 minutes. For the next 8+ hrs, I couldn't think of anything else. For the next month, I relived the experience with a horrifying feeling again.

I was ready to come back to the USA and had a reasonably nice time in Prague, but I will never forget the feeling of being groped. I'm pretty certain neither of the screeners enjoyed this work. I'm an obese middle-aged man.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393803)

Now guess which countries regulations demand that full-contact crotch groping of passengers on commercial flights to, from or over their airspace.
Hint: it's not the Czech Republic.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (3, Interesting)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393531)

In Thailand my body search was a completely trouble free experience. It lasted approximately 10 seconds. The officer used the back of her hand and ran it through any part of drooped loose fitting clothing to make sure I'm not carrying something concealed and then waved me through. I don't think she even touched my crouch, probably stopped short by 10cm.

It is probably more effective than the TSA scan which is primarily concerned with making you uncomfortable.

Re:The Patdown Procedure Was Horrifying For Me (1)

Zaurus (674150) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394749)

Though I select the scanner in my case, I completely identify with your feelings -- I had them too. It was overwhelming. Thank you for your comment. It prompted me to write a letter requesting my elected officials help eliminate this new terror, a copy of which I sent to both my State's senators and to my representative in the house.

Let's see (4, Informative)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40392949)

I have gone through TSA's rigamarole before the pat down/body scan. Let me tell you those scans of your carry on - they're pretty much useless. I had blades, screwdrivers, wire, circuit boards and a 1lb bag of Peanut M&M's go though without a hitch.

Re:Let's see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393055)

sure you did, exactly where is the video for your clams again?

Re:Let's see (4, Funny)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394227)

sure you did, exactly where is the video for your clams again?

So just because they're shellfish they don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy?

Re:Let's see (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394351)

As far as I'm aware, regulations do not currently prohibit screwdrivers (7 inches in length or shorter), wire, circuit boards, or candy. Now blades are another matter.

Re:Let's see (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394499)

As far as I'm aware, regulations do not currently prohibit screwdrivers (7 inches in length or shorter), wire, circuit boards, or candy.

Luckily for any would-be terrorists, the TSA doesn't employ any devices that allow them to detect that the gummi bears in a bag are made out of C4. Seriously, I can't bring 8 ounces of liquid, but I can bring 5 pounds of a gel substance?

There are literally hundreds of more examples of why the TSA is security theater and not real security.

Re:Let's see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394659)

I'm not so sure you are correct.
My father was taken to a private room with his carry on bag. The three _very nervous_ agents asked him to open his bag slowly. It seems the summer sausage he was toting looked like C4.

TSA misses stuff all the time! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393081)

Within the past two months I accidentally:
- Flew with a pack of fireworks (forgot I had them in one of my bags). Opted out of being irradiated and got swabbed for the explosive detector machine. Nothing.
- Flew with a non-disposable safety razor with spare blades. Disposables are OK, but the ones with the removable blades are not, with good reason. They are just a step down from boxcutters used on 9/11. My carry-on got X-rayed, and i guess they didn't see them.

I think there must be a better approach to airline security.

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (1)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393205)

Not sure how much damage you could do with fireworks, but I'm thinking that razor blades are benign. If by spare blades you mean cartridges, then yeah you can remove the blade. But there's hardly anything to hold onto as it's a thin strip of steel a fraction of a cm wide. If you meant double edge blades, then that gives you a bit more to hold onto, but it seems like an unwieldy weapon to use. I'd probably be more scared of a terrorist with a well sharpened pencil.

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (1)

countach74 (2484150) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393267)

I'm pretty sure a well trained hand to hand fighter would be much more deadly than some dork with a tiny knife.

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (1)

EnempE (709151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393515)

That is true but the idea is to reduce the ability to induce fear. I know a few people that in the cramped environment of a plane would be able to hold their own against the rest of the plane, they would have to though because people are not as scared of people as they are of a sharp object or the blood that using it creates. There are many items already on the plane that could do a lot of damage in the right hands but are not as obviously fear inspiring. I agree that the regulations do go too far and that it is all security theater. I just hope that they are putting well trained hand to hand fighters on the planes to sort out the dorks with tiny knives and just not telling us about it. I am surprised that they haven't banned red buttons and beards yet, TV and the news has taught us to fear a bearded guy with a red button more than anything else.

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (4, Insightful)

countach74 (2484150) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393245)

Yeah how about we just accept the fact that there will always be risk and say fuck you to the TSA? What a bunch of fucking perverts. I'm sorry, I don't care what your "job" is, just because your boss tells you it's okay to molest the child doesn't mean it's right. Call me old school, but there are moral absolutes: molesting people is absolutely wrong. If we weren't so brainwashed as a society, people might actually think for themselves and stop participating in this nonsense.

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (5, Insightful)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393535)

Never mind the "there will always be risk", the risk is very low compared to other stuff that we take for granted and do nothing about. Poor allocation of health care resources apparently kills thousands of infants each year (if we had Canada's infant mortality rate, 8000 fewer deaths per year, and Canada's only middle of the pack among developed nations). Lack of exercise shortens expected lifespans by 2-5 years, depending on how you define "exercise". Careless driving is good for tens of thousands of deaths each year, including over 3000 pedestrians (i.e., people not in cars). It is likely, though not proven, that inadequate food regulation (the fact that trans-fats from partially hydrogenated oils are still considered "food" instead of "poison") and poorly chosen agricultural subsidies (does HFCS need to be so cheap? No, it does not.) cause tens of thousands of early deaths each year.

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (1)

countach74 (2484150) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393975)

Completely agree.

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (2)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394403)

Never mind the "there will always be risk", the risk is very low compared to other stuff that we take for granted and do nothing about.

Yeah, in terms of terrorist attack risk, you could just consult this handy chart [boingboing.net] .

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (2)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393807)

I know a way to save $8 billion in taxes and $30 billion in taxpayers wasted time per year Shut the whole system down. And the beauty of it is that the chance of a terrorist blowing up your plane is almost exactly the same, to at least 5 or 6 nines.

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (2)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393325)

Bruce Schneier argues that whatever the procedures, if we want to get professional security we should treat the job as a profession, and recruit, train, and pay accordingly.

Re:TSA misses stuff all the time! (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393815)

Disposables are OK, but the ones with the removable blades are not, with good reason. They are just a step down from boxcutters used on 9/11.

I don't think there is any "good reason" for this security theater.

two gun-analogues passed San Jose airport in 1997 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393269)

also, this from 1997:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1997/03/31/NEWS10592.dtl

I wish the video showed more (2)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393291)

Not that I necessarily doubt that the video is genuine and shows what it claims, but he went to all the trouble to execute this, record handheld video, obtain the security camera footage, and sync it all together, but he doesn't once show us what he is supposedly sneaking through, other than a mostly unidentifiable glance in the security footage. He should have kept his camera filming the whole time while he walked into the bathroom, went into a stall, and then pulled out what he showed the camera. As it is, this could just as easily be a hoax. That "object" we see in the security cam footage could just as easily be a piece of fabric

The cordoned off metal detector in the video! (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393345)

What is this guy trying to accomplish other than ensuring eventual double scanning?

It's like driving through a DUI/DWI checkpoint drunk to make a point. More checkpoints.. yay? I mean these things are supposed to be deterrents.

You can't cry "naked body scanning" and at the same time say that is not acting as a deterrent, right? What is the logic, someone can see my naked body in high def and count my pubes, but I can try to bring a prohibited item through anyway? Well, duuuuuuuuh, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop you. How much confidence did this guy really have, what was the metal object anyway?

You can watch any prison show and learn a million different ways to make a shiv out of stuff on hand, it's not like specifically stopping small hunks of metal are really worth much. BUT, thanks to this guy they'll probably make you walk through the metal detector in the video TOO, just so some asshole doesn't get too confident.

Re:The cordoned off metal detector in the video! (2)

dark12222000 (1076451) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393681)

"Wooooooosh"

The justification for the TSA is that it works - they (supposedly) catch people who carry "dangerous" items on to planes.

The fact is, and as this video shows reasonably well, they don't catch dangerous items. You can, rather trivially, walk through TSA security checkpoints with a gun (and it has in fact happened, accidently, before).

A DUI/DWI checkpoint exists to catch drunk drivers, and they tend to be fairly effective at it. The cops also don't harass you, they check to make sure you don't smell like you took a bath in a martini, and let you go. They don't force you to get out, grope your genitals and then take naked photos of you. They don't give a crap if you bring a bag of candy with you - they just don't want you to drive drunk (which we can all agree is reasonable).

video (5, Insightful)

NetNed (955141) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393365)

Did anyone find the video a little hard to watch? I understand the effort and it's a valiant one, but with trying to watch the videos to see whats going on and the creator going on at quite a brisk pace to his speech, I found it a little more then disjointed. Explain the video so I can REALLY tell what is going on in each step (the graphics are not really that explanatory) , then go on your rant of what the TSA refuses to fix about itself. Both together are a little confusing.

Re:video (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394281)

the creator going on at quite a brisk pace to his speech

Talk about understatement. Turning the volume down was the only way I could figure out WTF was going on.

TSA Body Scanner fix? (1)

DodgeRules (854165) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393435)

Can't the TSA just have the people scanned twice? The 1st scan has the person facing the scanner to get the view as shown in the videos, and then the 2nd scan with the person turned 90 degrees. This would make it much harder to get something through the scanner without it showing up. Of course the body is usually wider side to side than it is front to back, but looking at the different body types that go through the scanner now, I don't think that would be an issue for most people.

This method would take twice as long to process a person, but is still faster than a pat-down and more secure than a metal scanner. Better yet, place the metal scanner at the exit of the Body Scanner as well as using the 2 scan method and it would be all the more secure.

Re:TSA Body Scanner fix? (1)

Aczlan (636310) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393699)

What has been my thought since this came out, it must be too logical for the TSA to use. Aaron Z

Re:TSA Body Scanner fix? (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393843)

Can't the TSA just have the people scanned twice?

Better yet, can't the TSA just vanish? Instead of molesting people at airports and violating people's rights, let's just accept the minuscule risk of a terrorist attack (unlikely since we secure cockpit doors now) and be done with it.

Prestidigitation (3, Insightful)

PhilistineGuillotine (2633149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393701)

Am I the only one who's noticed that neither of his videos present any evidence that he actually walked through the scanner with the metal object? I am sure the system is not foolproof, but this guy has no evidence that he fooled it. Come on slashdotters, pay attention.

Re:Prestidigitation (2)

tsaoutofourpants (2615595) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393963)

If you watch the video closely in 720p/full-screen, you can clearly see the metal object in my pocket. If you'd like, I can upload a high-res version of the relevant security camera to make it easier to see.

Misleading much? (4, Insightful)

mutherhacker (638199) | more than 2 years ago | (#40393731)

I hate the TSA as much as the next guy, but I watched the video twice and it doesn't show the guy defeating the scanners. It just shows him going through the x-ray.. It doesn't prove that he sneaked anything through...

intitmate areas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40393983)

This guy's smile is as frozen as the lady's on the delta pre-flight safety video.

What a waste. (1)

james_in_denver (757233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40394371)

Billions of dollars in technology thwarted by a $1 sewing kit probably made in China? I feel soooo much safer now.....

Body scanners are perfectly ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40394727)

I am perfectly fine with body scanners. As long as all members of congress receive a full body cavity search before each session!! You know it's always a great idea to protect them and keep them safe. It's in the name of freedom. Let's call it the SB Ben Dover Bill.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>