Slashdot Log In
JFK, LAX To Test Millimeter-Wave Scanners
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Apr 21, 2008 04:39 AM
from the actually-frauelein-we-no-longer-ask-for-papers dept.
from the actually-frauelein-we-no-longer-ask-for-papers dept.
Narrative Fallacy writes "The Transportation Security Administration has announced that it's beginning pilot tests of millimeter wave scanning technology at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) that allow TSA personnel to see concealed weapons and other items that may be hidden beneath clothes. TSA Administrator Kip Hawley says that that the potentially revealing body scans (YouTube) would not be stored and that 90% of passengers subject to secondary screening opt for a millimeter wave scan over a pat-down. The agency added that security officers viewing the scans would do so remotely, where they will not be able to recognize passengers but will be able to trigger an alarm if needed. The agency also said that a blurring algorithm is applied to passengers' faces in scanned images as an additional privacy protection."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Full Body Scanners Installed In 10 US Airports 454 comments
Lapzilla brings word that airports around the US are beginning to use a new type of body-scanning machine which records pictures of travelers underneath their clothing. The process takes roughly 30 seconds, and the person viewing the pictures is located in a separate room. We've discussed similar scanners in the past. From USAToday:
"[Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU technology project] said passengers would be alarmed if they saw the image of their body. 'It all seems very clinical and non-threatening -- you go through this portal and don't have any idea what's at the other end,' he said. Passengers scanned in Baltimore said they did not know what the scanner did and were not told why they were directed into the booth. Magazine-sized signs are posted around the checkpoint explaining the scanners, but passengers said they did not notice them."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Just a Matter of Time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just a Matter of Time... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Just a Matter of Time... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"See Jessica Alba's naked body (as captured by airport security guards)!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Forcing me to submit to scans that can "strip" off my clothes is a violation of that right. (Just as surely as forcing someone to carry a fetus to birth is a violation of their bodily rights.)
Re:Just a Matter of Time... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
why? (Score:5, Funny)
Is there a market in black market millimetre waves that I'm not aware of?
Indecent posing (Score:5, Informative)
To do this I had to stand in a certain posture.
Imagine someone trying to push, with both hands, a wall coming at them from a slight angle above - or, someone doing a Hadouken at a telephone pole.
At the same time they should have their legs like someone doing a "Kungfu Dancing" imitation, with the condition that they have just crapped themself so making sure they keep those cheeks extra spread.
Image from front and back.
Re:Indecent posing (Score:5, Funny)
The best part was that they weren't even scanning you. They pull this joke on all the tourists with American accents...
Parent
Re:Indecent posing (Score:4, Informative)
They described the process as an 'X-ray' which I would have questioned but as I was quite keen to be progressed I simply said "okay".
The stances certainly weren't easy, especially as you have to remain still, they had 3 different positions as I remember it.
Parent
"please take off your clothes" (Score:5, Informative)
They'll ask you to take your clothes off, put the clothes through the scanner to find anything "invisible" and then send them down a ramp at high speed getting them all mixed up with other people's clothes.
My current irritation in US airports is the "boarding card" check AFTER the body scanner. So if (like me) you normally put your ticket in your jacket pocket (which of course has to be scanned separately) then you get scolded even though your boarding pass had to be checked to get you into the security queue in the first place. All this check does is slow everyone down for another 10 seconds per person for absolutely ZERO benefit (they don't check that you are the person on the card, just that you have the boarding card).
Re: (Score:2)
One bunch of idiots making rules for another bunch of idiots.
Boarding pass check (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Humans make mistakes. Maybe the first human overlooked something on your ticket, so the second hopefully will catch it...
Think of it scientifically. If the humans are 99% effective at catching whatever they catch when looking at your boarding pass, one layer would miss 1 out of 100 evildoers. Two layers makes that number 1 in 10,000. Of course, the effectiveness of one layer is still debatable...
I would like to see personal interviews more commonplace, like how they do with the Israeli airlines. Just a
It may not stop terrorists but... (Score:5, Funny)
bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
How many of those people actually were aware of the pat-down option? I bet it was not 100%. Also, given the fact that even Medical information cannot be reliably kept confidential in most cases, I sincerely doubt this data will. Unless there are strong prison sentences for any employee convicted of disseminating this information, I am not impressed with their statements of security, confidentiality, or purported privacy.
Uh huh. I feel so much better that the pervert checking out my junk is out of sight. Yeah, much better. Ohhh, but I do agree that the blurred faces give additional illusions of privacy. I am certain that all the women feel better that we men aren't looking at their faces.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, what is the paranoia of the human body? Who gives a shit if someone see's my penis, if its a guy they have one of similar design in their pants too...
Parent
puritian influences (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:puritian influences (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:puritian influences (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely we can trust the government in erasing naked photos of our bodies.
Right?
Hello?
Hmmmm. Seems absurd we trust them with taking care of us (like children) in all other facets of life; why not this one too?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering I, like most people...
A) Don't collect Social Security, and have made alternative plans for retirement since SS will be gone by the time I'm 67 (my full-SS retirement age, a whole 42 years from now).
B) Don't utilize government healthcare. Medicare is a farse that will not last until I'm old and gray.
C) I purchased my own house with money I collected working a job, something a growing number of people seem unwilling to do. I also purchase my food with the same money.
D) I went to a private
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My neighbor has a a beautiful wife with the same similar design as my wife.. or even my mother. Does that mean that she (or her husband for that matter!) would feel comfortable showing her details to others? (nudists are considered an exception here).
Or what about the idea of your wonderful teenage daughter being selected for a scan time after time again?!? Would you 'give a shit' in that case
Re: (Score:2)
They see tons of people every day. Its nothing special to them.
In use at London Heathrow, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing that really annoyed me is that I wasn't given a choice - simply told to go through this device. There was no explanation of what it was, or what it would do, only that "the amount of radiation is about the same as flying for an additional 5 minutes at altitude in a plane". However, when I asked the simple question "do I have to?", they sheepishly admitted that I did not. I signed a form saying that I didn't accept it, and they walked me to the front of the line for normal security!
So, by saying "no", I actually saved about 20 minutes in line.
My advice - REFUSE to participate in invasive scans like this. If people accept these new intrusions like sheep, it'll just keep getting worse.
MadCow.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Although it hasn't happened yet, I'm personally waiting for the next news post.. "New scanner shown to cause various cancers, millions of people already scanned".
Think of the children... (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell me next time when there is kiddie porn leaked from the video feed of scanner like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking for blurs... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good thing I remember
so they'll be checking kids too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My employer forces me to get naked.. (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
The homeland security folks have had a blank cheque to pay for whatever cool toys they want for far too long.
Air travel is expensive enough as it is, and considering just how rarely I do it, the taxpayer subsidies are sickening as well.
Obvious flaw in system (Score:4, Interesting)
Medical privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
who watches the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I submit that if a TSA screener should be entitled to such a scan, that I should be entitled to see them do the same. Unfortunately, given the appearance and physical fitness of your average screener, I think I'm getting the short end of the stick even in that case.
In all seriousness, though, these sorts of violations by our governments upon the governed is the intent of terrorism. Civilians are the indirect target. By making them afraid, the government is pressured or motivated to enact increasingly restrictive laws and methods of enforcement to assuage that fear and protect the populace. The terrorists know that full protection is impossible, so they continue until the loss of freedom becomes so intolerable that the people overthrow the government. The politicians and so-called elected officials know this, but play into their hands anyway--in the short term, the power grab is irresistible.
The entire focus on security (and technology to improve such security) is wrongheaded, and is a convenient diversion from the real issue, which is why people become terrorists in the first place. People don't explode themselves for no reason whatsoever. No amount of technology, legislation, or vigilance will ever address the root cause that incites an individual to such fervor that they are willing to DIE to achieve their aims.
But again, the politicians know this--so one must call into question their own motivation for pushing these measures on the public. When I have the ability to subject each and every last one of our elected officials, corporate officers, and whomever is telling me I'm supposed to be OK with being scanned and exposed in such a humiliating fashion, to the exact same treatment, then and only then would I consider accepting such a practice. When I can see Dick Cheney's ugly-ass flaps of man-tits hanging over his oversized belly obscuring his undersized privates (mind you, not that I would ever risk the subsequent psychological scarring), I might reconsider. And if even one scan ever gets leaked or misused in any way, I'd like to see the scans of each and every one of those people involved in promoting this technology released all over the internet for everyone to laugh at as punishment. Otherwise, their promises and reassurances mean nothing.
It is not a question of trust, freedom, modesty, or security. It is a question of accountability; because without that, everything else is meaningless. To the extent that those that watch us do not desire to be watched by us is the precise extent to which we are not a free and just society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Suicide bombers are not poor, nor do they tend to be uneducated.
2) Suicide bombers are often not Muslim (e.g. Tamil Tigers, the Christian suicide bombers who operated under Hezbollah)
3) They are not more likely to be from areas known to foster Muslim extremists. In fact the presence of US troops in their home country is a better indicator by a factor of ten.
4) Suicide terrorists are not
Of COURSE they will be stored. (Score:3, Insightful)
The scans have to be stored for criminal prosecution and accident/incident investigation.
I for it if more accurate and faster; Is it safe? (Score:3, Interesting)
As for prudishness, most bodies are boring if anyone has spent more than a few minutes at a nude beach or as a medical professional. Most mature people can easily handle this.
Re:Option to opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
People are often afraid of challenging any sort of authority these days - for fear of reprisal. That's unacceptable. You shouldn't be afraid to ask questions, and shouldn't be labeled a terrorist for doing so either!
MadCow.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not about asking questions. Its about if its actually worth it.
Your going to get searched anyway. Best to get it over and done with quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... yes, it's not worth it at the security check-in. However, it damn well is worth making a fuss. Air travel has become an horrific nightmare in the past 7 years. We are all treated like potential terrorists, our laptops etc are randomly taken away from us, often never to be returned. We are treated to indignities that even cattle do not face.
Everyone needs to be making MUCH more fuss. This has got to stop. Even if you believe in the terrorists under the bed nonsense, y
Re:Option to opt-out (Score:4, Interesting)
I -do- mind having my nude photo taken in order to be allowed on a plane.
I mind a lot -MORE- though having to deliver a metric shitload (make that 2.356 imperial shitloads) of personal data in order to be allowed to fly.
Realistically, I look like an average adult. If someone gets off on blurry outlines of average adults, it's not as if such are in short supply anyway, and frankly I kinda doubt it. And I doubt these pictures are even stored at all, past the few seconds the guards spend inspecting them.
On the other hand, to even be allowed to fly into USA, your freedom-loving government insist that my plane-company provide them with a LONG list of personal data, to be stored indefinitely;
My name, sex and age. When I bougth the ticket. If it's a return-ticket or not. How I paid for the ticket. If I bought it directly, or trough a travel-agency. With whom I'm traveling. Age, name and sex of everyone I'm traveling with. What class I'm flying. My complete travel-itinerary for this trip. And so on.
I consider this a -much- worse invasion of privacy than some blurry nudes. And infact I refuse to comply. Which mean that I refuse to visit the USA at all presently (and have since 2001).
A pity. There's friends over there I'd like to see more often, and there's places I'd like to see and experience. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back, you'll regain some measure of privacy, if not, oh well, it's not as if there's a lack of other interesting places to go and things to do.
I liked the way planes worked on the tiny airport near where I grew up. A lot like buses do today. You wait until the plane lands. Stewardess comes out and opens the luggage-hatch. You yourself toss your luggage in and enter the plane. Stewardess comes around and checks that everyone has a ticket. Your name ain't on the ticket and at no point are you even asked who you are. Closes the doors, and off you go. You could drive into the parking-lot and see the plane land -- and make it no problem. Back then. Oh well. Guess I'm getting old.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The easy path is one that leads to losing all your rights.
Point out to me precisely where you derive this "right" to getting on an airplane without being searched? Go on, show me. I'm sure you know exactly what paragraph and clause in the Constitution says you have the right to board an airplane without having to comply with security regulations. You have to know because you're so damned sure you've got this "right."
Of course, you have no such right because the law makes no provision for one. If you do not wish to submit to being scanned/searched/whatever, you
Re:Option to opt-out (Score:5, Informative)
Airports were the first place where it didn't apply. Now you can be frisked before entering a night club, a political rally, or hell, even your local high school.
The way the US has let the Fourth Amendment slip over the years is a disgrace.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you do not wish to submit to being scanned/searched/whatever, you can take a bus, a cab, or your own personal transportation. No one is restricting your ability to get from point A to point B, there are no traffic control points with Gestapo'd brownshirts saying "papers please."
Please. How can you travel to anywhere in the US without taking a plane? and how about going to Europe? I remember the story about that guy who wanted to give a talk in the US, and got blocked at the airport for a no-fly-list reason. That way he couldn't give his talk (3 days delay). Gestapo you said?
So, in your eyes, asking someone to submit to a thorough search of their person and belongings in order to guard against the possession of bombs (see Pan Am Flight 103), boxcutters (see 9/11) or guns (more than I can easily cite), is...unreasonable. Yeah...right...Okaaay.
I see you quoted two terrorist events. Could you give a number that will show how it is more likely than winning the lottery? Or remind us why security experts couln't obtain the guards near the plane itslef