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!

T-Ray Camera Sees Through Clothes, Preserves Privacy

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the so-they-say dept.

Privacy 315

Quite a few readers are sending in stories about ThruVision's products, slated to be demonstrated in Britain next week, that are claimed to use Terahertz radiation ("T-rays") to detect foreign objects under clothing, without revealing body details, from a distance of 25 meters and while the subject is in motion. T-rays lie on the electromagnetic spectrum between infrared and microwaves, and are the subject of lively research efforts worldwide. ThruVision says it developed its products in cooperation with the European Space Agency.

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

OMG (2, Funny)

dartarrow (930250) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698344)

pr0n!!


oh wait.....

Don't be silly (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698352)

Everyone knows the real threat is breast milk and hand cream. Why are we scanning bodies for weapons when there are people trying to get on the plane with Starbucks coffee??

Don't be goatse! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698398)

Re:Don't be silly (5, Informative)

iNaya (1049686) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698462)

Stupid things getting confiscated happens a lot. I've accidentally brought scissors onto a plane while my girlfriend had make-up and beauty cream stolen from her. (It wasn't in the mandatory plastic bag (don't see how a plastic bag makes make-up less dangerous though)). By focussing on too many things, security actually drops because it allows more error for more dangerous things to get on. They wasted so much time arguing with my girlfriend they didn't actually catch what was in my jacket as it went through the scanner.

Re:Don't be silly (3, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698498)

>my girlfriend had make-up and beauty cream stolen from her
I blame modern advertising techniques. When you have ads on TV with blinged up rappers saying 'When I is vexed wiv me dry hands man, I get me some Oil of Olay - it's da bomb' - it's no wonder security staff get confused.

Re:Don't be silly (3, Interesting)

Mike89 (1006497) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698652)

Stupid things getting confiscated happens a lot.
Heh, just over 10 years ago (when I was ~8), I went on a plane with two pairs of scissors on my pencil case (in Australia). They were allowed on, but for safety reasons they gave them to Mum before we boarded... How times have changed!

Re:Don't be silly (5, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698710)

I can top that :)

20 Years ago I went on a plane with DYNAMITE baby!

I was a kid, and all I wanted to do was to get some M80's and M160's back to my school for some good harmless fun. I stuck it in my desktop computer (no really), in a bag between the hard drives and the floppy disk where there was still 2x5 1/4 bays.

I figured what is the worst they could do to a 12 year old?

Of course.. now as an adult I realize that putting about 2 dozen firecrackers into the overhead compartment was just a little unwise.

Re:Don't be silly (1)

Mike89 (1006497) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698826)

That's fantastic. I assume you didn't get caught?

Re:Don't be silly (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698874)

Nope. They were not looking too closely at a 12 year old little boy flying alone.

It might of had something to do with the fact that an X-Ray machine may not be able to penetrate between the floppy disk and the hard drives from a top down view (I assume that to be so). So it was as if the bag of firecrackers was encased in lead lined box.

Re:Don't be silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698898)

M80s aren't dynamite.. but still.

Re:Don't be silly (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698828)

they just did now want you to run with them since you were 8 at the time...

Re:Don't be silly (4, Insightful)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698702)

don't see how a plastic bag makes make-up less dangerous though

The argument is that the liquids they are afraid of are volatile and hard to contain in cans, and thus you would see condensation on the inside of the bag.

Incidentally, do you know how many terrorist attacks that airport security at check-in have prevented? :)

Re:Don't be silly (2, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698930)

Really ? Can you show me a source for your claim that *that* is the "official" reason ?

Sounds downrigth ludicruos to me, and I've never seen that particular claim before.

First, it's not true that it's hard to make a can that is sealed well enough that no vapors, certainly not enough to cause visible condensation would escape.

Second, condensation happens on cold surfaces, if the plastic-bag is the same temperature as everything else (I don't see why it wouldn't be) there'd be little condensation even if there *was* a lot of vapor inside the bag.

Third, there's no prohibition that I've seen on having a ventilated plastic-bag, say one that has lots of holes in it, or even one made of some breathing membrane.

Not that being ridicolous is any sort of defence offcourse, lots of downrigth silly things happen anyway.

Re:Don't be silly (1)

agrapentin (1064820) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698984)

Second, condensation happens on cold surfaces, if the plastic-bag is the same temperature as everything else (I don't see why it wouldn't be) there'd be little condensation even if there *was* a lot of vapor inside the bag.
If the bag was sealed at a warmer temperature, or with a humidity level that the current temperature cannot keep in gas form, condensation will occur.

Re:Don't be silly (2)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22699002)

But what about the terrorists? :P

It doesnt have to make any sense.
Just as long as the important people look like they are doing something.

Re:Don't be silly (2, Funny)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698590)

Dude, you have no idea what kind of dangerous weapons of mass destruction you can disguise as breast milk, hand cream and Starbucks coffee. Terrorists are using them to kidnap and molest your children. Won't somebody think of the children?? With this new scanner, we can protect and--God forbid we will have to--save your children. Why do you hate America's children, you crazy hippie?

(Committee for Aviation Transportation Security says "All your privacy are belong to us")

Re:Don't be silly (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698600)

Everyone knows the real threat is breast milk

I propose a MANdatory tactile inspection of breasts for milk at every airport terminal in the country. No, i propose the same test be administered randomly to women on the street since airports aren't the only viable targets.

Re:Don't be silly (5, Informative)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698670)

People taking their own drinks on planes is a real threat ...to the profits of Airport Operators who make A LOT of money selling duty-free retail space.

Re:Don't be silly (4, Funny)

Dorceon (928997) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698786)

You can get a breast milk latte at Starbucks now? Why wasn't I told?

So.... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698370)

.... it detects foreign objects? a tampon? or only objects RIGHT under clothes? Cause we all seen news of drugs hidden inside human orifices.

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698932)

If it talks like a duck, WALKS like a duck, then, well, it's a terrorist duck. Don't need T-Ray to tell me that.

Preserves privacy (5, Insightful)

robably (1044462) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698386)

...so long as you redefine privacy to mean exclusively "photographic images of your body", and exclude anything else including the contents of your own pockets. That's a pretty narrow definition of privacy. So narrow, in fact, that it stops being privacy at all.

Re:Preserves privacy (4, Insightful)

jotok (728554) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698470)

It's like the "so long as you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument: the definition of "right" is getting so narrow as to be ridiculous.

To use a networking metaphor...Our model of government is supposed to be one where the government's rights are whitelisted and everything else is by default given to the citizen, but we're moving towards a state where the government is blacklisting OUR actions.

"Right" and "wrong" have, sadly, never had absolute definitions and have proven to be quite malleable in tyrannies past.

Re:Preserves privacy (1)

robably (1044462) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698574)

Well, this is more about the hypocrisy of marketing-speak than the tyranny of governments (for now). They're aware that people will be concerned about the privacy invasion it implies so they've tried to head those concerns off at the pass, without realizing it makes them look even worse. They now look like uncaring bastards, instead of just some people with a cool new implementation of technology.

Re:Preserves privacy (3, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698616)

It's like the "so long as you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument: the definition of "right" is getting so narrow as to be ridiculous.

Yet interestingly I don't see politicans, civil servants, CEO, etc being first in line to tell everyone exactly what they are doing.

Re:Preserves privacy (5, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698580)

...so long as you redefine privacy to mean exclusively "photographic images of your body", and exclude anything else including the contents of your own pockets. That's a pretty narrow definition of privacy. So narrow, in fact, that it stops being privacy at all. [ Reply to This ]
Have a bit of pity on the people who have to look at the pictures all day. That's an aweful lot of disgusting bodies to look at for just a few good looking ones!

Re:Preserves privacy (5, Informative)

robably (1044462) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698704)

That's an aweful lot of disgusting bodies to look at for just a few good looking ones!
If I remember correctly, I think that's part of Operant Conditioning [wikipedia.org] - producing a reward only occasionally is more effective at reinforcing a behaviour than rewarding the behaviour every time. After you've conditioned the rat to press the bar to receive a food pellet you reduce the frequency of the reward and it ends up pressing the food bar manically in the hope of receiving another. Thus in this case, hot chicks stand out from fat birds and the operator is stimulated to continue looking to find another.

Re:Preserves privacy (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698728)

Is this the same reason why some men become gynecologists?

They go through a few miles of bad clam just in the hope of getting to that few inches of celebrity/supermodel paradise?

Re:Preserves privacy (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698876)

Have a bit of pity on the people who have to look at the pictures all day.

If they are doing that the security value is probably close to nothing. You'd need something like they do this for a maximum of 15 minutes in every hour or two.

Re:Preserves privacy (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698886)

Yeah, but imagine what the future presidential elections will be like when the candidate of the day goes on stage and some geeks have rigged one of those machines up to the room...

If we're lucky, they'll make a law banning all campaign soundbyte footage from TV news forever ;-)

Brings a whole new meaning to term ID'ing people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698762)

I can just see the (ab)uses now:

Ahha, hahah - so that's why scarface's doll gave him the nickname '3 inch Phil'
Hmm, that must be the woman we are looking for, see natural blonde with dyed black hair!
Look blue in color - that must be tight fisted minister responsible for our measy pay packets.
etc

Re:Preserves privacy (4, Interesting)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698896)

Indeed. Some of us have the oposite priority even.

I don't particularily care very much if someone gets a glimpse of me naked somehow. I look like an average 32 year old male, if that's someones particular thing, more power to them.

I -DO- however strongly oppose massive registers being maintained about my every movement, with name and address, class I'm flying, how and when I paid for my ticket, if it's a return or single, where I booked it, how many pieces of luggage I checked in, who I'm traveling with, who I phoned the last 2 years and for how long we chatted, and and and and....

Everything stored and collected in massive secret government-databases to be used for screening for "terrorists".

What happened to presumption of innocense ? Since when is it okay to collect data on EVERYONE because SOME may be guilty ?

jpg (2, Funny)

stjobe (78285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698388)

jpegs or you're lying!

Judging by this picture (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698402)

The "naught bits" might not be very clear, but a lot of people would be unhappy with security guards looking at images of you like the one shown in this article [mindcontrolforums.com] . Would you be happy with some guy looking at a picture of your teenage daughter like this?

Just waiting on Total Recall type scanners (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698440)

so why cannot a computer be used to provide cover? In other words, it can mask out the irrelevant bits, and leave all the solid objects in view

Re:Just waiting on Total Recall type scanners (2, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698452)

'cause then you'd be able to disguise a weapon of mass destruction as a mere tool of rape.

Re:Judging by this picture (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698542)

Is it just me or do those two pics not match up correctly?

And how many of you clicked on the link to see if it showed "naughty bits?"

Not sure (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698634)

I think they may match if you take into account a slightly different camera angle. It is not easy to tell. In any case I would be surprised if anyone would "risk" faking a picture like this, it is so easy for potential purchasers to ask for a demo.

Re:Judging by this picture (1)

multipass666 (1213904) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698768)

The parent is very correct. I remember reading an article about this technology a few years ago. Back then it was referred to as using 'soft x-rays' and not 'T-rays'. The image in the above link posted I would say has almost certainly been deliberately blurred. The images I saw a few years back were a hell of a lot clearer and more defined. The whole body was visible including the genitalia clearly shown. When the article states that the product can see weapons underneath clothing but will not reveal body details what the hell do they think will happen? Some sort of blurry patch to be automatically generated around a woman's breasts? The resolution of any such image is limited only by the wavelength of the radiation used. And anything in the terahertz region is able to show minute details on the scale of millimetres if desired. Perhaps the ThruVision contains software to automatically blur the image so as to preserve privacy. But I wouldn't trust it. Take a look here for a better example of what I'm talking about. http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20080309/camera-sees-through-clothes/ [coolest-gadgets.com] That to me, is not 'preserving ones privacy'. Like the parent states. What if that was your teenage daughter, your wife or your child. This stuff makes me sick.

Re:Judging by this picture (2, Funny)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698796)

You mean the one of the guy with the knife hidden in the newspaper?

Considering how image conscious teenagers are, I don't think she'd be happy being made to look like a cross between a colthes store mannequin and Krtyten from Red Dwarf.

Re:Judging by this picture - no teenage daughter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698820)

Would you be happy with some guy looking at a picture of your teenage daughter like this?

Sorry, I don't have a teenage daughter. I'm guessing you do. So if she's a blonde and older than 16 are you able to share some T-Ray pictures of her to help me make up my mind if I would be concerned by this or not. Thanks very much!

Re:Judging by this picture (1)

nonewmsgs (1249950) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698830)

that picture makes me want to work for the TSA. can i buy a camera that gives the naughty picture?

Re:Judging by this picture (5, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698868)

Actually, that'd not bother me at all. (though it'll be a few years before any of my daugthers enter their teenage-years)

I don't at all get the obsession with body-shape in American culture. Those images give you an idea comparable to what you get on any beach, besides, it's just a human body, most of them are quite similar, there is some minor variations, but really, it's not -that- interesting. People who -do- want to look at nude girls (or boys) have a limitless supply already, and that is perfectly fine.

It bothers me a lot more that the idiots think they need to know every tiny thing you bring with you, be it a can of Coke, a tube of toothpaste or a key. I can live with the metal-detectors, though frankly I don't approve of even those.

As for the "airplane as missile" threat, that is trivially handled: Install a locked, secure, cockpit-door, end of story. It's not as if: "Fly the plane into that building, or I'll kill this passenger" will work. (the pilots would just refuse, it makes no sense to kill everyone, including that passenger to prevent the killing of a passenger)

Besides, I have the same ridicolous restrictions when flying on a 20-seat plane flying say Anda - Bergen, there isn't even a potential target within the RANGE of the airplane. If someone *does* take over the plane, best they could do would be killing everyone aboard, plus a single-digit count of people on the ground if they do their aiming well, frankly, this "threat" does not worry me much.

Frankly, if your goal in life is to manage to somehow kill 20 people, there are easier ways. Defending against them all ain't worth it, because any marginal increase in security is more than counterbalanced by MASSIVE losses of freedom.

I'd rather live free and have a 1:1million chance of dying as the result of a terrorist-attack, rather than live in a cage, checked every step of my travels, and have a 1:2million chance of dying as the result of a terrorist-attack, both risks are negligible anyway. (if the adiminstration cared about real risk they should start the "war on diabetes" or "war on traffic" or "war on obesity", all of which kill more people a month than terrorism does a decade)

Re:Judging by this picture (0, Troll)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698956)

As for the "airplane as missile" threat, that is trivially handled: Install a locked, secure, cockpit-door, end of story. It's not as if: "Fly the plane into that building, or I'll kill this passenger" will work. (the pilots would just refuse, it makes no sense to kill everyone, including that passenger to prevent the killing of a passenger)
Maybe not. On the other hand "I'm going to kill one passenger every minute until you open this door" would probably work. Also, "I'm going to set off my bomb if you don't open this door in 30 seconds" is pretty much guaranteed to work.

Besides, I have the same ridicolous restrictions when flying on a 20-seat plane flying say Anda - Bergen, there isn't even a potential target within the RANGE of the airplane. If someone *does* take over the plane, best they could do would be killing everyone aboard
Imagine that - airlines wanting to prevent the unnecessary deaths of 20 passengers, highly valued pilots, and the destruction of a multi-million-dollar aircraft. Silly buggers.

Frankly, if your goal in life is to manage to somehow kill 20 people, there are easier ways. Defending against them all ain't worth it, because any marginal increase in security is more than counterbalanced by MASSIVE losses of freedom.
....

This is why nobody has asked for your opinion.

I at least partly agree with you - I think the best way to stop terrorists and murderers is to pass concealed carry laws and encourage a culture of gun ownership. It's no coincidence that most mass-killings occur in "gun free zones". However, wild gun battles are a bit of a bad idea when you're inside a pressurized fuselage at 30,000 feet. The only logical alternative is to ensure that nobody brings any weapons on board.

if the adiminstration cared about real risk they should start the "war on diabetes" or "war on traffic" or "war on obesity", all of which kill more people a month than terrorism does a decade
Ohhh, I know! Even better, let's have a war on old age! Surely if we get enough hippies protesting against it, we can get old age and death-by-natural-causes to be declared illegal. Then we can have a true utopia, free of all worry!

T-Ray? (1)

lunchlady55 (471982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698406)

I'll hold out for my Z-Ray [things.org] specs. (Better than X-Rays. Two higher, in fact!)

Re:T-Ray? (2, Funny)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698976)

Bastard! you robbed me of my chance to get a +5 funnay!! I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE THE FUTURAMA REFERENCE :.(

Oh, hell yes. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698410)

They might as well call it Titty-ray. I'm no longer going to regret dropping out of high school and becoming a TSA agent!

Schiphol Amsterdam using same kind of technology (5, Informative)

Tjeerd (976354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698422)

Last year they installed a device at Airport Schiphol in Amsterdam, that can also scan through your clothes to see what's beneath it. Read the article [url=http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/174-amsterdam-airport-body-scanning]here[/url]. Some articles on the internet claim that "The Security Scan scanner is based on a technology that uses millimeterwaves. The waves will persist over clothing, and are reflected by the skin. Also other materials, such as plastic, metal, wood, iron, ceramics, etc. reflect the waves. This will help to detect suspicious objects." More information can also be found here [safeviewinc.com] .

Re:Schiphol Amsterdam using same kind of technolog (0, Redundant)

linuxpng (314861) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698506)

ah what the hell.. guns, bombs, and cameltoe!

Re:Schiphol Amsterdam using same kind of technolog (1)

priandoyo (1247048) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698654)

Great, then we should update all of security procedures in airport [securityprocedure.com] , don't know how can we so paranoid like this

Re:Schiphol Amsterdam using same kind of technolog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698678)

Those who speak don't know, those who know don't speak.
Is that nerd-speak for "I'm socially awkward, and therefore smarter than you"?

Re:Schiphol Amsterdam using same kind of technolog (1)

Tjeerd (976354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698890)

It's actually a quote from Lao Tse, actually a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi]philosopher[/url] from the ancient China. Although you could apply the quote to a nonsocial person, it is more meant for people who talk as if they know everything and are just talking non-sense. Some people are not talking that much or not at all, but do know a lot. Ok, in the end I think it applies a lot to nerds, but I don't know whether in the ancient China there were already a lot of nerds...

Re:Schiphol Amsterdam using same kind of technolog (2, Informative)

billsf (34378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698684)

Schiphol has had this technology for a few years now. The 'technicians' watch the show in a curtained box some distance from the gates and relay findings to security. When I asked if it was a 'sub-millimeter' system, I was told so, with a smile. They also have infrared that can spot people with a fever, who cannot fly. This system is passive. This device operates at about 10uM or 30THz.

BTW, 1mm = 300GHz and a true 'T-ray' is at about 1000GHz or 1/3mm.

Re:Schiphol Amsterdam using same kind of technolog (1)

KinkyClown (574788) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698900)

That's why a lot of people use the backdoor to Schiphol: http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/article2029191.ece [www.ad.nl] (Sorry: this is in Dutch).

Aluminum foil (5, Funny)

pesc (147035) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698438)

Time to make some aluminum foil underpants to go with your hat.

Re:Aluminum foil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698650)

Except, you've got nothing to hide with your tinfoil underpants...;)

Re:Aluminum foil (3, Funny)

siddesu (698447) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698716)

meh, n00b. we've had these for years now.

Re:Aluminum foil (3, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698750)

They modded you funny, but maybe it should be insightful.

Just how many women do you think would pick up a pair of Privacy Britches (TM) to go through the check process? I am betting 99.9999%, with the very small percentage being nymphomaniacs, exhibitionists, and freaky sadistic grannies.

On Another Note... How many men would be stuffing their pants with aluminum sausages out of vanity?

Just possibly there is a product in the works here.

It's a threat to privacy no matter how you look at (5, Insightful)

jay-za (893059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698454)

Any deice that attempts to see things you have decided to conceal is a threat to privacy. Just because I choose to conceal something doesn't make me a terrorist, I could be concealing an external bladder bag (or any other kind of medical device), women (and guys, I suppose) may have given themselves some non-surgical "enhancements". There are all sorts of things I may be concealing that are no threat to anyone, but could embarrass me if they were made known to others.

No, the question here isn't whether this is a threat to privacy or not - it is. The question here should be is it a threat we're prepared to accept. How much of our privacy are we going to give up for a sense of security?

Re:It's a threat to privacy no matter how you look (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698772)

Of course we should accept it. It's technology developed jointly by the EUROPEAN space agency. Haven't you heard? Europe = Good, infallible, ex cathedra. America = Evil.

Re:It's a threat to privacy no matter how you look (1)

jay-za (893059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698822)

European space agency? Then I'm terribly concerned over privacy.

Just what we don't need, a satellite based T-Ray camera. Just when you thought it was safe to go outdoors (without wearing your tinfoil hat, vest and undies).

Of course, on the flip side, the CIA will be able to check out hot chicks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorists for weapons during covert operations.

Re:It's a threat to privacy no matter how you look (2, Interesting)

jay-za (893059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698862)

Something that just occurred to me is a different use for this technology (assuming it's safe, and depending on the range).

What about using it in military outposts (especially in areas where suicide bombers are prevalent) to check people approaching. Much less of a privacy concern there, and much more useful too. Possibly create a vehicle mounted system that could go out to investigate suspicious people loitering around the area or even approaching the gates.

Re:It's a threat to privacy no matter how you look (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698968)

Fine, you go have your privacy. You can ride with the others who aren't checked. I'll stay on the plane that had a security check thank you.

Let me be the first to say... (2, Funny)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698474)

...owwwww my sperm!

OH wait.. that was an F-ray!

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698688)

...owwwww my sperm!

Don't worry. It only hurts the first time.

cool (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698486)

Can you get one of these from an ad in the back of comic books, along with some sea monkeys?

Re:cool (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698548)

Hey I remember those ads! good times.

Some T-Ray images (1)

hatchet (528688) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698492)

Here.. [space.com]
Note the date... article is from 2003, and technology hasn't advanced at all since then. (Or prove me wrong, provide links)

Re:Some T-Ray images (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698672)

Or prove me wrong, provide links

You are just asking for some porn site spam!

Re:Some T-Ray images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698706)

From your link, caption: "A fully clothed man imaged by a QinetiQ millimetric wave camera. Note the concealed gun. T-ray cameras are said to be similar but more powerful. Image used with permission." (emphasis added.) In other words, you're likely wrong and at least untruthful by presenting it this way. Elsethread there are links to indeed much sharper images said to be from T-Ray cameras.

This is really old (1)

duck0 (1073338) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698496)

I remember the picture of the guy with the knife, but a the time they called it millimeter wave? Didn't they like that buzzword? (sorry, I have no proof)

Bah (3, Funny)

Mantaar (1139339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698504)

They can do what they want, but they'll never see through my tinfoil overall. I even have a catheter, so I never have to go pee. They've got cameras in the toilets, too!

Re:Bah (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698920)

Explosive diarrhea is a serious threat.

Too late... (5, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698518)

Planes hijacking using knifes cannot happen again. The 9/11 was a one-time event. Before it, in case of plane hi-jacking, passengers sat quietly, waiting for the hijackers to finish their negotiations. After 9/11, taking back the control of a plane at the risk of getting hurt is the most intelligent course of action. This is what apparently happened on UAF93. Now you can't hijack a plane without anything short of an automatic gun.

All this craziness about uber-security is just useless, the only risk today is the risk of bombing and it is already hard enough to bring a big engine in the cabin. Bombings are far easier by bringing a car full of explosives into a crowded area...

Re:Too late... (1)

teh moges (875080) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698626)

I agree with your point about plane hijacking, though this type of technology would help protect embassies against a rouge intruder and any area that is open to the public from someone walking in with a bomb hidden just out of view. From a purely maximal strategy, for the terrorists, a car bomb is the best "terror for each loss" return. However losing just a few lives to a suicide bomber is a very bad outcome for those involved.

The loss of some privacy is a concern. I can't see a solution to the "I want to be able to do whatever I want without the government spying on my" versus "I don't want people blowing up bombs next to me" problem. Everyone has that line with this type of security, anything up to the line is an acceptable loss of privacy for security and anything past the line is unacceptable. I would rather prefer going into a building and knowing I can safely walk back out again while some security guard finds out I'm not as fit as I should be. However, with the advancements in image processing recently, I can see these systems hooked up to image recognition that automatically detects for foreign objects and only shows "problem" ones to an actual human. Once the error rate for these programs gets over the error rates for humans, I feel a lot of this technology can be brought in more places, with less loss of privacy.

Re:Too late... (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698686)

Perhaps if people took responsibility for their actions. Most of the "terror" is because of our foreign policies. Take care of that, then the invasion of our privacy becomes less necessary. Some of the threats are from crazies. Increased understanding of mental illness would help there . But neither approach is likely to lead to increased profit, so we get t-rayed in the 'nads so others can profit.

Re:Too late... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698870)

Most of the "terror" is because of our foreign policies. Take care of that, then the invasion of our privacy becomes less necessary.

That may be, but advocating isolationism doesn't strike me as a better solution. We should go home and let the extremists be? So long as they are killing/torturing/repressing someone else its OK? Anyone who thinks the answer is easy clearly doesn't understand the issue.

Re:Too late... (3, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698804)

Once the error rate for these programs gets over the error rates for humans, I feel a lot of this technology can be brought in more places, with less loss of privacy.


Man you are missing something here and it is HUGE. What about BOFA, Bastard Operator From Hell?

Somebody has to administrate and perform maintenance on that equipment. Every single surveillance system ever created has been abused in this way. Not just those systems either. Businesses that deal with anything that is expected to be private like developing photographs, medical records, etc.

Assuming that the interface is that restricted, it would help eliminate the embarrassment of looking the person in the eye. I will give you that. It does not however eliminate the loss of privacy by any stretch of the imagination, it only shifts it someplace else.

There is a case in the news right now where a private detective in California is being charged for invading the privacy of celebrities by bribing and coercing the employees responsible for safe guarding this private data. This is where I get the BOFA's. People who are responsible and put in a position of trust that end up abusing people horribly.

No, I'm sorry. The only solution is to stubbornly, and I do mean to the death, fight for our privacy tooth and nail. Never agree with, nor participate with any such system that eliminates your privacy in this way.

Do they have a right to try to make me walk through one? Sure. Do I have a right to where lead lined clothing going through the airport? Absolutely.

Re:Too late... (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698628)

. Bombings are far easier by bringing a car full of explosives into a crowded area...

Or a big suitcase. And last I checked, airport security checkpoints are fairly crowded.

Quick ! We need pre-security security !

Re:Too late... (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698966)

All this craziness about uber-security is just useless,

Actually it's useless at best. There are undoubtedly much more effective security measures to spend the money on. However these are likely to be unobtrustive, in no way bother the majority of people and likely to catch the "wrong sort" of terrorists. Thus making them unattractive to politicans.

the only risk today is the risk of bombing and it is already hard enough to bring a big engine in the cabin. Bombings are far easier by bringing a car full of explosives into a crowded area...

A car in a crowded area can be an effective weapon even without filling it with explosives.

Does this mean (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698524)

My x-ray specs [modernmechanix.com] are obsolete?

Preserves privacy? (3, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698532)

How can anybody claim that something that can tell if I'm wearing nipple rings or a Prince Albert, or a variety of medical devices from colostomy bags to artificial breasts "preserves privacy"?

Big deal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698734)

If some airport security guy gets his kicks from seen "T-ray" images of me, good for him. He probably needs it. It's not that hard to find detailed pictures of naked people on this thing called the Internet, you know?

I for one would much rather have them look a "T-ray" pictures than, for example, the contents of my laptop.

Re:Preserves privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698758)

I'd rather them see some artificial boobs on a girl than my real ones. And I'm a man!

T-ray (5, Informative)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698582)

It's a really unfortunate choice of names, this "T-ray." Inevitably, it wants to make a person associate these waves with x-rays. Photons are photons, but as far as these guys go healthwise, it's pretty certain they'll have more in common with radio or microwaves than x-rays. Heck, the reason they call them x-rays and gamma rays in the first place is because they're in the regime where it makes sense to talk about photons as particles, rather than waves. And they call them "radio waves" and "microwaves" because THEY are down in the more wave-like regime. Just call it "millimeter wave" and be done with it, before we get people claiming they're getting ARS from T-ray devices.

(Let us not forget that a single terahertz-range photon carries about 4meV of energy. That's little-m milli, not big-M mega. These guys might cause some heating, but they're not going to be ionizing many atoms in your body.)

Re:T-ray (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698662)

Also, it doesn't help google searches. You will find plenty of sites selling trays if you search for t-ray!

Detects foreign objects? (1)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698592)

Sorry Tibet, but Mr Gere now has a new issue to campaign about.

Technology will solve eeeeverything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698642)

I guess we'll all have to start wearing T-ray goggles, if only to level the playing field.

"Security" (3, Insightful)

$pearhead (1021201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698644)

Am I the only one wondering, for example, why the hell they're selling glass bottles in the shops past the security check (just smash one of those and you have a potentially deadly weapon) when they won't even let anyone bring their own beverages?

Frying tonight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698666)

Some people are over cautious about mobile phones, there gonna have kittens when this becomes widespread...

/autocomplete (1)

MrKane (804219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698714)

...Get Your Ass To Mars. See you at the party Richter! Start the reactor. Free Mars. Get ready for a surprise!

why is marijuana illegal (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22698742)

why the fuck is marijuana still illegal? you useless slobs tolerate nature being illegal, hallucinogenic plants schedule I? Are you out of your fucking minds?

lazy sheep

Wow! You sure gotta lotta pepperoni in your bread! (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698794)

I don't know if anybody remembers that old Little Ceasar's commercial.

So what if I wear metallic clothing ? (2, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698882)

These devices use sub mm wavelengths, which means that they would be stopped by metallic meshes with a mesh size of 0.1 mm or so.
(I have seen women's party dresses with meshes like this).

So, what if I wear a metallic mesh shirt or coat ? Or pants ? So much for the T5000.

BTW, has any physicist ever used the term "T rays" ? What dumb-ass marketing guy thought that up ?

So if I don't want to be exposted to..... (1)

blankoboy (719577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698884)

...terahertz radiation (T-rays), I just need to stop traveling by air and stay away from the streets of London? How soon will be before they are doing drive by scans of people in their homes to ensure they are in compliance with the order of law.

I assume that they will also be giving out coupons for cancer treatments to the people they are scanning to be used 20 years later.

/Negative, I am a meat popsicle.

Re:So if I don't want to be exposted to..... (1)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698988)

/Negative, I am a meat popsicle
Must...block...the...mental...image...

Oblig Star Trek (2, Insightful)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698922)

After reading TFA and some of the linked material, it came to mind that if a small T-Ray scanner that would fit in ones hand were invented, it'd certianly have most of the capabilities of the tricorder [wikipedia.org] from Star Trek. Identify materials, scan tissue for disease, etc. Interesting...

Let's be sensible and remember, (2)

chris_sawtell (10326) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698944)

That you can avoid all the insane inconveniences of airports and aeroplanes by travelling on a train. Tiny carbon footprint in comparison too. Perhaps it's time for the airport security industry to be taught that lesson.

heh. knives.... (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22698964)

heh. reminds me of a colleague who traveled to china once - but before he left he argued with his wife.

her revenge? she packed a set of carving knives in his hand luggage.

"damn you, you silly little man! I already told you nobody has fiddled with my luggage!" - needless to say the knives and his argumentative nature meant that he missed his original flight. ho ho..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?