Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Privacy United States News

JFK, LAX To Test Millimeter-Wave Scanners 235

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

JFK, LAX To Test Millimeter-Wave Scanners

Comments Filter:
  • by MadCow42 ( 243108 ) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:24AM (#23140288) Homepage
    I had this happen at London Heathrow. I was selected for secondary scanning, and directed to the mm-wave device. The operator was sitting in a booth right beside the machine, but only he could see the screen.

    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.
  • puritian influences (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hansoloaf ( 668609 ) <hansoloaf@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:34AM (#23140338)
    I see the Puritan influences is still pervasive and strong in this country regarding our bodies.
  • by LingNoi ( 1066278 ) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:45AM (#23140380)

    the amount of radiation is about the same as flying for an additional 5 minutes at altitude in a plane
    That's 5 minutes too long in my opinion.

    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".
  • Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by electrictroy ( 912290 ) on Monday April 21, 2008 @06:57AM (#23140428)
    I don't understand the paranoia. This is the GOVERNMENT we are talking about. We trust them with our future retirement savings (SS); we trust them with our healthcare (medicare and coming soon: universal gov't hospitals); we trust them with feeding and housing us (food stamps; welfare; et cetera); and educating us (gov't schools).

    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?

  • by owlnation ( 858981 ) on Monday April 21, 2008 @07:03AM (#23140444)
    Airport security -- first job choice for pedophiles now. The government spends half its energy trying to catch people looking at kids in their underwear, and then the other half making sure some people can get a good clear view.
  • by benwiggy ( 1262536 ) on Monday April 21, 2008 @08:00AM (#23140700)
    If the system has an algorithm to blur the details of faces, then obviously, you just need to hide your terrorism kit in your face.
  • Medical privacy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21, 2008 @08:27AM (#23140844)
    I'm a transsexual, and this would totally out me (people generally can't tell). As if I need people to find more excuses to give me shit.
  • Re:Option to opt-out (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Eivind ( 15695 ) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Monday April 21, 2008 @08:42AM (#23141000) Homepage
    Agree to that. But for non-puritans the worst part already happened.

    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.
  • by gatzke ( 2977 ) on Monday April 21, 2008 @09:00AM (#23141210) Homepage Journal

    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 few questions for each person, hoping to pick up cues. "where are you going?" "what are you doing there?" kind of questions. Of course, that could be seen as stereotyping people...
  • by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Monday April 21, 2008 @09:37AM (#23142008)
    I thought all radiation is dangerous to some degree, even sunlight.

    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:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21, 2008 @10:53AM (#23143860)

    I don't trust the government any further than I can throw it, but I don't trust you either. That's why I'm happy as hell people are screened before they get on a plane with me, and I wish like hell they'd scan more of them and more thoroughly.
    "When Government undertakes a repressive policy, the innocent are not safe. Men like me would not be considered innocent. The innocent then is he who forswears politics, who takes no part in the public movements of the times, who retires into his house, mumbles his prayers, pays his taxes, and salaams all the government officials all round. The man who interferes in politics, the man who goes about collecting money for any public purpose, the man who addresses a public meeting, then becomes a suspect. I am always on the borderland and I, therefore, for personal reasons, if for nothing else, undertake to say that the possession, in the hands of the Executive, of powers of this drastic nature will not hurt only the wicked. It will hurt the good as well as the bad, and there will be such a lowering of public spirit, there will be such a lowering of the political tone in the country, that all your talk of responsible government will be mere mockery... "Much better that a few rascals should walk abroad than that the honest man should be obliged for fear of the law of the land to remain shut up in his house, to refrain from the activities which it is in his nature to indulge in, to abstain from all political and public work merely because there is a dreadful law in the land."

    --Rt. Hon. Srinivasa Sastri, speaking in the Imperial Legislative Council, at the introduction of the Rowlatt Bill, Feb 7, 1919
  • Re:Medical privacy (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21, 2008 @03:45PM (#23149550)

    I'm a transsexual, and this would totally out me (people generally can't tell). As if I need people to find more excuses to give me shit.

    You're not the only one around here. I know a number of people who are rather freaking out over this.

"It ain't over until it's over." -- Casey Stengel

Working...