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!

Airport Screeners could see X-rated X-rays

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the sea-monkeys-and-snapping-gum dept.

Privacy 1407

AdamBomb writes "Think airport security is bad enough already? Well, the Department of Homeland Security is now planning on rolling out new machines that will allow screeners to actually see through clothing. Could be bad news, though privacy advocates are obviously fighting it."

cancel ×

1407 comments

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

Who wants to see everything? (5, Funny)

IO ERROR (128968) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652556)

"Well, you'll see basically everything," said Bill Scannell, a privacy advocate and technology consultant. "It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

It's time to get a job as an airport screener! [opm.gov]

Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (0, Flamebait)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652589)

You'd have to be a pretty big Pollyanna to believe that removing all security at the airport will result in safer air travel. There has to be some balance as to what is acceptable security and what is over the limit.

This falls on the "acceptable security" side for me. This, paired with a metal detector would mean almost 100% transparency with regards to body-carried weapons. Even ceramic items like knives or a Glock would be caught by the X-ray whereas the metal detector alone would have missed them.

There is a chance that some perv would get the job as x-ray screener, but that's a chance you take in any position (ask someone you know who has worked at a fast food restaurant what kind of nasty stuff goes on there).

This can only result in faster screening, less intrusive body searches, and greater security. I can't see what anyone could complain about. (That's a lie, I can see plenty of Chicken Littles finding plenty to complain about)

Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (4, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652649)

Repeat after me:

Glocks are not undetectable ceramic weapons. Glocks are relatively normal guns with lots of parts in them that will set off metal detectors.

Keep repeating this until you have learned it.

Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652656)

This falls on the "acceptable security" side for me.

That's great. Meanwhile, the rest of us are trying to enjoy what rights we have left, ok?

Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (4, Insightful)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652668)

This falls on the "acceptable security" side for me.

What then would be unacceptable?

It is thinking like this that would amount to a slippery slope when it comes to fighting the great (and greater) govt.

So today it is more intrusive searches on 100% of all passengers for the sake of reducing body cavity searches for that unfortunate few, does that mean that tomorrow it'll be ok to have cameras in every single home just because "some home is harbouring terrorists"?

Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652688)

What then would be unacceptable?

Gloved finger in the ass, which is what we have now.

Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652734)

Well, I like it.

Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652678)

If you want safer air travel, then lobby for some measures that would actually help. For starters, let any peace officer carry his off-duty piece when boarding a plane.

For a long-term solution, let anyone who's proven his or her ability and willingness to train to carry a weapon aboard an aircraft do so. Attempting to disarm everyone simply discards the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people.

-jcr

If you drive on the highway... whats an airplane (4, Insightful)

Catskul (323619) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652705)

Hmm what keeps someone from storing plastic explosive up their a$$ ? Releaving themselves of it once they get on the plane... Maybe everyone should have full cavity searches before entering the plane... I mean why not, whats a little cavity search when your securtiy is at stake.

What keeps people from filling the metal tubes of their cary on luggage (shoes anyone ?) with explosive, pointy weapons. Lets outlaw any metal framed carry on luggage!!!

There are lots of ways around this and so the advantage is minimal, and the disadvantage is screeners seeing your wife/girlfriend/daughter naked...

No thanks. I take my chances driving on the highway, which is more dangerous than a plane trip, I think we are more than safe enough. Thanks but no thanks.

Re:Who wants to see everything? (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652619)

For me, its more like:

It's time to make that tin foil body armor I was promised by my parents I would never need.. whodve thunk?

Re:Who wants to see everything? (1)

kristopher (723047) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652650)

Who wants to? Umm.. They do.

Re:Who wants to see everything? (1)

xor.pt (882444) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652671)

Ok now, anyone can tell me how this isn't going to work? There we are at the airport, and this hot chick goes by, are we really going to look for weapons, explosives, whatever, when we can see their nipples? Also... All you guys have been smiling at a chance of having that job, but how many of you would have to look away if you had to look all day at old ladies, guys, old guys, fat ladies, fat guys, ugly ladies, fat old and hairy guys(ahah you thought i was gona said ugly guys) and i i'll rest my case with 'pre ops'.

Re:Who wants to see everything? (4, Insightful)

Rolman (120909) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652703)

"It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

I personally don't care if it goes as far as to show nipples. It's already bad enough if it allows you to see through clothes that people specifically put on to cover body parts they're not willing to show in public.

By that definition, I don't even want them to see through my watch. If they really want to have a look, let them come and ask me to take it off. They already do that with shoes, belts, jackets, hats and whatnot, what's the problem with that?

I'm a frequent flyer and I'm already pissed with the current security measures. They should make those more efficient before thinking on implementing new equipment under the same, flawed policies.

Re:Who wants to see everything? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652732)

Beats having a big friendly dept of homoland security agent asking "is this a concealed weapon" every time....

can they see through this? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652557)

sweet file manager http://shinyfeet.com/ [shinyfeet.com] and I can't wait for file sharing and photo galleries

Before you read the article (4, Funny)

tehshen (794722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652559)

We don't see any saucy pictures. Just so you know.

Old news! (1)

IainMH (176964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652560)


This technology has been around since the early 80s [imdb.com] .

Re:Old news! (1)

cyklo (795952) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652620)

I was under the impression these were already in use anyway, given this article dated 2004 [bbc.co.uk]

This is pretty screwed up. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652561)

But you lot will take it lying down just like you do with everything else.

Don't worry folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652563)

I checked the picture, it is not good quality. So don't stop your breath. No need to apply for jobs at airport.

Re:Don't worry folks (2, Insightful)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652663)

Do you think that matters? When my cute neighbor walks naked through her apartment I don't mind starring despite the fact that the view is shitty thanks to the blinds being half closed. ;)

Oh... (1)

xor.pt (882444) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652564)

Oh the pain... the humanity... of the war on terror! -_-'

Two Questions (4, Funny)

Adrilla (830520) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652566)

1. Where do I apply
2. How do I get put in charge of the 'Hot Chick' section

and oh yeah, something about "my rights are being taken away and freedom is dyin...blah blah blah"

Re: Two Questions (1)

St. Arbirix (218306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652626)

They'll probably wise up to the inherent vulnerabilities involved with a typical installation and instead run a Eunuchs-based system.

Re: Two Questions (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652638)


> 1. Where do I apply

Local security firm.

> 2. How do I get put in charge of the 'Hot Chick' section

That's given out on the basis of seniority. You'll spend 30 years examining fat old men before you get your turn.

Re: Two Questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652652)

You'll spend 30 years examining fat old men before you get your turn.

Many slashbots have that much experience already. Those that don't are only a few years away.

Re:Two Questions (1)

cahiha (873942) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652729)

2. How do I get put in charge of the 'Hot Chick' section

You need to be a woman, or at least be able to pass for one. In order to find the "chicks" attractive under those circumstances, you need to be lesbian or heterosexual but transgendered, respectively. Oh, and you still need to keep quiet about it because if you are found out, you'll be transfered.

well (-1)

weekendwarrior1980 (768311) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652567)

If you've got nothing to hide, why is the need to be concerned?

Re:well (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652598)

my wiener?

Wife's breasteses?

More the second. That's something i want to hide from people who aren't me or baby.

Re:well (1)

IainMH (176964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652614)

my wiener?
Wife's breasteses?


And this being slashdot, probably your own moobs.

Re:well (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652660)

There are two types of geeks. scrawny geeks and fat geeks.

I'm a scrawny geek

Re:well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652612)

If you've got nothing to hide, why is the need to be concerned?

You're right. In fact, unless they're terrorist, why would people wear opaque clothing at all?

Can I see you naked please? (4, Insightful)

EvilCabbage (589836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652629)

If you've got nothing to hide, may I see you naked?

No?

How about if I screen you every time you walk through my front door with something that allows me to see you essentially naked, no matter what you feel about that?

Forget asking nicely, get fucking naked, now. I need to make sure you're not carrying anything like a nail file, or a pen.

Re:well (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652633)

Typically, I like to keep my winky hidden. When good days come, he still likes to stay hidden, just not in my pants...

Re:well (1)

skingers6894 (816110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652658)

Having "nothing to hide" is the real problem....

Re:well (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652664)

I like to keep the trouser python hiden untill special occasion, like being extremly drunk ...
Seriously though , i don't want people looking at me naked . If they want to see me naked then they can pay not me having to pay for the privilidge of having my privacy absued just for a short trip

Re: Nothing to hide from *whom* (1)

Paraplex (786149) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652695)

"If you've got nothing to hide, why is the need to be concerned?"

This one of the most common fallacies with regards to infringing upon peoples privacy.

Did the Nokia representatives have anything to hide when they were denied their rights to attend the IATC Meeting for supporting Kerry in the last election? http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/ 25/2116250&tid=215&tid=126&tid=103&tid=218&tid=219 [slashdot.org]

Its noones business what I feel I want to hide.
What if i'm wearing an "evolvefish" necklace hidden under my clothes when i'm a member of W's administration? What if i have "Hells Angels for life" tattooed on my ass from when I was 14 and drunk? What if I have a non contageous skin condition that causes the security staff (or whoever else manages to access the imagery) to treat you differently.

It. Is. None. Of. Their. Business.

Re:well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652711)

If people didn't want to hide anything then it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper and more effective to just ask them to walk through naked. Try to keep some grip on reality: most people want to hide stuff. If you don't then that's interesting, but it's just you.

Regular people (5, Funny)

Ledora (611009) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652569)

Have you seen regular people in society? like 1/3 of people are overweight and many people are OLD..... yeah it would be nice when a euro female soccer team comes thru but UGH I would not want to see the normal 40something soccer MOM (or dad)!

Re:Regular people (1)

jumbledInTheHead (837677) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652602)

Ohh come on, tell me the soccer mom doesn't do it for you. But seriously it depends what city your in on the average attractiveness of people, but even then I bet you'd see a lot more of what you didn't want to than what you did.

Re:Regular people (1)

SenorCitizen (750632) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652613)

yeah it would be nice when a euro female soccer team comes thru

I think you've been misinformed... there has *never* been a sexy female soccer player. The whole sport is strictly off limits to everyone but tomboys.

Re:Regular people (4, Insightful)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652691)

Have you seen regular people in society? like 1/3 of people are overweight and many people are OLD..... yeah it would be nice when a euro female soccer team comes thru but UGH I would not want to see the normal 40something soccer MOM (or dad)!

Do you know how many websites there are that are exclusive content for mature women, or grandpa's fucking? You might not like the scooer mom, but check out how many MILF websites there are. Lots of people like these 30-50 year old women in pantyhose.

Don't be suprised if these x-ray naked pictures make it to the web. If someone can steal Star Wars Revenge of the Sith, before it made it to theaters, then someone will get these pics on the web.

Might be bad news! (2, Funny)

Dr.Opveter (806649) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652570)

What if this means we won't be padded down anymore?!

Re:Might be bad news! (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652618)

Damn! I was just *cough* getting to know a certain customs lady. Or rather she was getting to know me quite well.

Or could I consider this advance in technology as... changing positions?

Might be bad news!-Touchy Feely. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652637)

"What if this means we won't be padded down anymore?!"

What?! You want to feel their touch?

Re:Might be bad news! (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652713)

What if this means we won't be padded down anymore?!

Pray the airplane doesn't crash, just like always.

KFG

Plenty of other modes of transportation (1)

ericdano (113424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652573)

Look, there are plenty of other modes of transportation. Trains, cars, boats. If I have to go through an X-ray to make flights safe, so be it. If someone is going to get off on X-rated X-rays. So be it.

I can't imagine X-rays being used as porn, but whatever.....

Re:Plenty of other modes of transportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652611)

Check out the epiglottis [washington.edu] on her!

Re:Plenty of other modes of transportation (1)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652666)

Look, there are plenty of other modes of transportation. Trains, cars, boats. If I have to go through an X-ray to make flights safe, so be it. If someone is going to get off on X-rated X-rays. So be it.

The problem is, whatever they implement with airplanes will later be implemented with trains and other forms of transportation.

What if someone wants to get lost? To start over? It will be less possible with the loss of privacy?

I'll give you one example. A person turns 18, and goes off to college. He is not that smart, but family pressure for a good job pushes him into college. He somehow passes some of the easier classes, cheating, copying, buying reports. He gets a C in english, a C in history, a A in a PE activity class, a F in science. That allows him to come back for another year. But the next year, his classes get smaller, he now is getting F's in just about everything. Three years later, he is dismissed from the university, $30,000 in debt to federal loans. During the same time, he runs up his credit cards. He finds out the federal loans stay for life, there is no bankrupcy. To top it off, the credit card debts keep getting sold, and that is reported as activity, so the 7 year limit keeps getting reset.

This guy can't get a good job, his grades are crap, and he realizes that he was born to be a mechanic working for $11 bucks an hour. He is happy that he has something better than working for $7 an hour in McDonalds.

It is not enough to live well, but with a roomate an apartment becomes possible. Food is cheap fare. There is nothing left over. If he gets sick and can't work, he will be thrown on the street.

Now he starts getting letters from the government threatening throwing him in jail, having his paycheck garnished, all sorts of nasty stuff.

So what does he do? He wants to move to a different city, pick a different identity. It should not matter, he is working for little pay. He figures a mechanic is needed everwhere, people need their cars fixed.

These new laws will screw him. What if everytime he wants to take a train they ask for a fingerprint (like a library in naperville is doing)? What if Congress passes a national ID act? He won't be able to live.

Re:Plenty of other modes of transportation (1)

Rumagent (86695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652697)

I can't imagine X-rays being used as porn, but whatever.....


Then you have pretty poor imagination. How long do you think it will be before the first "celeb-nudes" starts popping up? Some asshole operator is bound to bring a camera and a poor set of morals.

Re:Plenty of other modes of transportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652731)

I can't imagine X-rays being used as porn, but whatever

Apparently you've never tried watching scrambled Pay Per View.

Hey, I was young and stupid!

Distracting (2, Interesting)

skingers6894 (816110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652576)

What, and the machine operators are supposed to become more vigilant and effective while watching this peep-show?

Re:Distracting (1)

EvilCabbage (589836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652677)

I think the eunuchs will have this section of the job market cornered.

hiring? (1)

jumbledInTheHead (837677) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652577)

Now how do I get one of these new jobs?

X-Raying "Big Bones". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652578)

"Could be bad news, though privacy advocates are obviously fighting it."

At least all the ugly ones are.

sample pic (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652579)

Here's a sample of what they see:

http://www.freedomisslavery.info/index.php?p=1138 [freedomisslavery.info]

Re:sample pic (1)

Reene (808293) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652727)

Judging by the picture, this doesn't strike me as being too terrible at all. As long as the people at the airport have more maturity than the average nerd on slashdot, well, no big deal. :)

Dammit...I'm a grow-er not a show-er (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652582)

Now I'm gonna need to visit a fluffer right before I walk thru the gates.

Thomas Jefferson saw this coming (5, Insightful)

madsenj37 (612413) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652583)

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

Somehow... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652586)

Somehow I don't think the screeners will be having much fun. Sure, once in a while they'll get some hot sauce, but when I walk through? They'll get an overweight 6' tall fat guy, with a prince albert. Take that!

When can we expect... (5, Funny)

Mister Impressive (875697) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652591)

When can we expect the retail eye-wear version of this technology to be mass produced?

</obligatory>

Time to register... (1)

testednegative (843833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652592)

www.airportexxposed.com

i don't care if people see me naked, but thers always the argument of "i don't want a random stranger seeing me naked" or what if he stores it ?

you NEVER know. the sooner you come to grips with that, the sooner you can live for real.

Re:Time to register... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652647)

Hm, maybe finally people will start finding a use for that .aero domain.

Airports... (1)

Ziviyr (95582) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652594)

I'm amazed with all the crap that one goes through that airlines are still in business.

I reached the "I'll walk instead" point a while ago.

Re:Airports... (1)

datafr0g (831498) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652702)

Thanks for the advice.

After all, swimming the atlantic ocean isn't too much of a chore once you get used to it.

I want this job ! (1)

earthstar (748263) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652595)

Could someone please tell me quicky , how to apply for this job of looking through clothes ?

What a job !
See ppl naked and get paid ! wah!



I want this job badly !

Meh, it was implemented some time ago (1)

skomes (868255) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652596)

I remember reading a story about this, people were given the choice of going through a see through screening machine, or going through more intensive screening procedures, and they were allowed to see the images of themselves. Still, this is far too intrusive, how long before there are no other screening procedures, and only this machines that see through clothing? Although, I guess all the terrorists are going to start getting fatter, thereby heightening their chances of diabetes, early death, etc., not to mention reducing their ability to go through those training camps. As well, this'll make them buy 2 seats next time they feel like crashing a plane. So, in a way, maybe this will be a good and effective tool after all.

(OFFTOPIC) Slow day? (0, Offtopic)

Yuioup (452151) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652597)

News updates have been slowing down at slashdot. Has this got to do with the recent layoffs at OSDN? I'm suprised slashdot hasn't picked up this story yet:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/26/dotnet_lon ghorn/ [theregister.co.uk]

Y

This is old (4, Informative)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652600)

Maybe not a repost on slashdot, but I remember reading about this in Time over a year ago ( 2 years ago? ).

This is old tech, and while privacy is a concern, I'd rather have someone checkin' out my jimmah if it means weapons have a lesser chance of getting on the plane.

As an asside: I don't think tighter passenger security is where we should be headed: I think we should lock down the air planes. The cockpit simply isn't accessable from the main carrage of the plane, there would literally be a seperate entrance externally. Further, I favor undercover armed guards on every flight. Police officers, if you will.

I think this would go a long way in making our flights more secure, without having to resort to privacy encroachment methods.

Re:This is old (3, Funny)

skomes (868255) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652623)

Might be kind of tough for the flight attendant to serve the pilots their meals on long distance flights by traversing the exterior of the plane.

How to travel with security... (1)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652735)

The police will never keep all contra ban off airplanes. The good guys will follow the law. The bad guys will keep trying to get stuff on the airplane that is illegal. Look at the supermax prision in California. They had a show on TV about how an inmate made a knife from a tooth brush by shaving the hard plastic against the concrete floor of his cell. He used that tooth brush knife to kill another inmate.

What we should do is open up the airplanes for anyone to fly, without background checks, without any searches (except looking for bombs). Send the dogs through the luggage holding section. I would feel safe, those dogs are good.

Let me take a gun on an airplane. Let Joe Sixpack take his shotgun on an airplane. Let the little old grandmother pack a glock in her purse. Nobody will know who is armed. If some terrorist decides to hijack the airplane, they will get blown away. They won't even know what direction the shot will come from.

I know what most are saying, shoot a gun on an airplane and you could blow out a wall.

There are things that can be done to stop this from happening. Force airplanes to have steel reinforced doors to the cockpit, and to keep sections seperate. What reason does someone from coach have going in first class? Throw up some locked steel doors. If one section gets blown open, the plane can still land. Second, have a good steel skeleton, so even if all the walls come down, the plane can land. And bolt the chairs down.

If the airplane has a steel skeloton, and all the chairs are bolted, nobody will get sucked out. And since the blow out will only affect one section, the other 4 sections of the airplane will be unaffected. The pilot will land as quick as possible. It will be a bit scary, but everyone will survive. And that is the worst case scenereo. If airplanes limit guns to .22's, it will still be enough to kill a person but it won't blow a hole in anything.

Two sides (4, Insightful)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652601)

The human in me thinks this is a twisted invasion of privacy , the man side thinks woo naked chicks sweet job.
However the human side wins out here , this is totaly unacceptable . they will have to have seperat entrances for men and woman as people are uncomfy with a member of th oposite sex seeing them in the all together(not everyone mind you) .I know its wrong and a body is just a body but that is still not a belive that everyone shares and people have issues about this.
If i want sweaty security gaurds seeing me in the buff i will get a website for it , I don't want to have this foist upon me by over zelous national security.

Video of scanner in action (1)

PDA_Boy (821746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652604)

Presumably this will be called "Debbie Does Dulles"? And terrorists can no longer wear thick clothes to disguise weapons- people will see through that straight away!

wow, this will never fly (1)

downsize (551098) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652606)

"Well, you'll see basically everything," said Bill Scannell, a privacy advocate and technology consultant. "It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

now we can't get the majority of our nation to understand our generation's rules and what should and should not be allowed - nor can get get them to differentiate between a file swapper and a copyright infringer, but they know when their johnson or kitty is being exposed and they'll fight against that.

I don't care, really - as long as I get my thumbs up and a smile from the scanner after I pass though, and then perhaps a little high-mile club action

Are you suprised? What did you expect? (5, Funny)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652609)

The city of boston started with 1000 camera's for the convention, promising it was only for the convention, then deciding to keep them.

The city of chicago followed next, installing 3000 camera's. They can look inside cars. They can tell if you're smoking a joint. They can tell if you're talking to a prostitute.

The city of naperville is installing fingerprint machines in order for people to use the library.

The United States Congress is pushing for a national ID card, with biometrics.

Lets face it, people will soon be tracked, it will be impossible to just slip into a city. The police will know who you are and where you are at all times.

They will soon take your DNA, without your agreement. Anyone hear about DNA dragnets being used in towns? And it is easy for them to get it. They pull you over in your car, they take you down to the station with a bogus charge. They take your picture and fingerprints. They then tell you, we'll we made a mistake, sorry, you're free to go. And as you leave, they vacum up the hair that fell out off your head. Now they have all the information, and there is nothing you can do about it.

So what if they can see you naked? Big deal. That should be the least of your worries, that Officer Friendly can see your wee-wee. What would worry me more is he can keep a tab on what your reading at the library.

Databases are here to stay, and in the future your whole life will exist in a database, somewhere.

It sucks, but that is the preperation for the revolution. If you're not willing to work 50 hours a week just to cover your rent, you will be labled a terrorist. Cuba is waiting for all who complain.

Re:Are you suprised? What did you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652670)

OMFG, you mean you might actually get caught doing something illegal?!

Are you suprised? What did you expect? Communism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652689)

A chip to the forehead is up next. I'm not worried because I'll be living in a Muslim country. Lotsa freedom there.

Oh grow up you lot (1)

troon (724114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652630)

Does it really matter? All that is seen (judging from the article) is a monochrome fairly artificial outline of the body. If you really think that someone who has to view hundreds of such images a day is going to "get off" on them, you're sadly mistaken.

Unless someone particularly shapely comes through, they're not going to bat an eyelid. Most people's shape is apparent when clothed, and seeing through to the true surface isn't a problem.

Clearly, I'd be much less happy about an actual strip search, but imaging techniques don't bother me.

Re:Oh grow up you lot (1)

PhreakinPenguin (454482) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652651)

I don't know about anyone else, but I think there's a huge porn marketing idea in this. I'll go check if hotairportporn.com is taken!!!

Re:Oh grow up you lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652673)

Unless someone particularly shapely comes through, they're not going to bat an eyelid.

I can see why this wouldn't be a concern to the shapeliness-challenged like Troon but for some of us all those batting eyelids could cause a hurricane.

Job Openings? (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652642)

Which airports get this first, and are they accepting applications? :-O

here's another (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652646)

you security workers, save a few scans and share them with me on http://shinyfeet.com/ [shinyfeet.com] (though the file manager of unlimited online storage)

Stupid, expensive, and pointless. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652653)

Now if they just figure out how to spread the contracts to 40 or more states, it's the perfect government project.

The fact is, the perps have already given up on hijacking airplanes. Within a month of 9/11, they'd already switched to trying to shoot down planes with shoulder-launched heat seeking missles.

The only purpose of the whole TSA is to keep people docile, lest they realize that expecting government to keep them safe is pointless, and take appropriate measures for self-defense if they feel the need to do so.

-jcr

Great! Give out awards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652659)

Now we have a line on who the wee wee-wees are at Slashdot. I doth protest! I but emerge from cold water!

Trialling it in London (2, Interesting)

linuxci (3530) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652675)

They're trialling this scheme at London Heathrow airport for a while now. They still have the standard metal detectors, but they pick people at 'random' for the body scanner.

I usually avoid Heathrow like the plauge because of the long queues and usually use London City Airport [flylcy.com] as you can check in there 20 mins before take off. However, one day I had to fly from terminal 4 at Heathrow and while waiting in a 40 minute queue to get through security I noticed that they always seemed to pick the slim and reasonably attractive types for the body scan. So either that was coincidence or there was a few pervs there.

"This device was developed... (3, Funny)

mrjb (547783) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652682)

...for airport security, honestly!", Thus spoke the geek inventor of the device he affectionally calls "the incredible peepshow machine". "It took quite a bit of tweaking to get the part of the nipples and genitals outlines right though"

Good news for slashdotters (1)

Mjlner (609829) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652683)

Finally, there's a career option as airport security officers, which would make it possible for slashdot dwellers to see a woman naked. I'm all for it!

Things overheard at the airport (3, Funny)

Dr.Opveter (806649) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652685)

security guy: Please step aside sir!
guy: Who me?
security guy: Yes you with the cock ring

Safety? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652690)

Are they just shooting x-rays at people without any protection? Isn't that kind of dangerous? As in it could cause cancer?

If that's the case, I'm walking to Europe.

The Next Site (1)

earthstar (748263) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652692)

www.airportXraypic.com

Get the Nkd pics of anyone who ever flew through a US Airport after year 2005 !!

Contains Actors,Actresses,Political Bigwigs & more.All for $30 / year.


Blink . Blink. :P

Will that happen?

Bad news for who? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12652694)

Bad news for me?

No.

In my current obese state it's bad news for the poor sods who have to look through the device.

No free pr0n (2, Informative)

Underholdning (758194) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652698)

. "I have a beautiful 29-year-old daughter and a beautiful wife, and I don't want some screeners to be looking at them through their clothes, plain and simple," he said

The operators of the scanners are only allowed to scan people of the same sex as themself.

Re:No free pr0n (1)

Paraplex (786149) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652719)

ever heard of lesbians? (cmon.. you visit slashdot.. of course you have)

Re:No free pr0n (2, Funny)

downsize (551098) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652723)

whew, luckily there are no gay people working at the airports

to the author, and to all the readers (1)

cahiha (873942) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652709)

To the author of the article (a "professional" writer?): the proper gerund of "backscatter" is "backscattering"; "backscatting" means something entirely different (musical or scatological, take your pick).

To all the readers, if you want to see thousands of nude bodies parading around (in color), go to a nude beach. I think you'll soon appreciate the custom of wearing clothes, and you'll see that we don't wear clothes to prevent lust and desire, but to create and enhance them. Clothes allow even people with fairly unattractive bodies to look decent; as geeks, we should all appreciate that.

I pity the screeners that have to look at thousands of average human bodies without the protection of clothing.

So this is not child pornography? (4, Interesting)

IsThisWorking (883966) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652721)

Pedophiles everywhere must be excited about this.

Work for the government, get paid, and get to watch naked kids all day long...

There is relly no need to encrypt your files [slashdot.org] , after all.

I'm just waiting to see how long it will be before someone start posting those pictures.

Nothing to see here (1)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652730)

I remember seeing an Xray of a person with a barbie stuck "up" them once. But that's nothing. I swear its true, I've also recieved emails of X-Rays of people with bullets, dildos, and even the eiffel tower. I can forward these incredible pics if you want them...

Eh, you got a small penis? Sucks to be you! (1)

iMJ (870866) | more than 9 years ago | (#12652736)

Im a big fan on privacy, and im not gonna lecture on and on about it. Xray to see through clothes to come out mainstream. Im sorry but how awsome is that? 1. Comeon guys.. hotchicks galore, am I right? (jk) 2. If this is what it takes to stop someone from blowing me up then in all means do it. 3. How cool is xray vision, just wait till it become s a public "toy" :) In other words, okay so whats the worst taht could happen? You could be a transvestite, or someother weird thing. Its not the workers job to pay attention to your "areas of privacy" its to reduce what goes through airports, trains, and other means of public transportation. I do not mean to offend anyone if you were.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?