Backscatter X-Ray Machines Easily Fooled 342
Pinckney writes "A paper by Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson in the Journal of Transportation Security asserts that x-ray backscatter machines are not very effective (PDF) even in their intended role. While carelessly placed contraband will be detected, the machines have glaring blind-spots and have difficulty distinguishing explosives from human tissue. As they write, 'It is very likely that a large (15–20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake [of PETN explosive] with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology. ... It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible.'"
Better technology (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Better technology (Score:5, Funny)
This obviously means that we are going to need better technology. We'll need technology that will be able to give us a full color representation of your completely nude body, but only if you're a hot chick. - Your Friendly local TSA Agent
Bah, There's nothing for the female TSA Agents. I suggest only hot guys get scanned. I don't think slashdotters need apply.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This obviously means that we are going to need better technology. We'll need technology that will be able to give us a full color representation of your completely nude body, but only if you're a hot chick. - Your Friendly local TSA Agent
Even better, implement beer goggle technology into these full body scanners, so no matter how the passenger really looks, the TSA agent will never need eye bleach at the end of his or her shift.
Re: (Score:3)
How about the opposite? (Score:2)
"Yes, the TSA will see you naked, but the image is digitally altered so you look 200lb heavier, and, well, chunky."
Re:How about the opposite? (Score:5, Funny)
That depends on if the passenger had Taco Hell the previous night.
MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:4, Funny)
The TrisexualPuppy
Re:Better technology (Score:5, Insightful)
This obviously means that we are going to need better technology. We'll need technology that will be able to give us a full color representation of your completely nude body, but only if you're a hot chick. - Your Friendly local TSA Agent
Even better, implement beer goggle technology into these full body scanners, so no matter how the passenger really looks, the TSA agent will never need eye bleach at the end of his or her shift.
How about reverse beer goggles. No matter how hot the people going through the scanner are, the agents that see the scans will want to gouge their eyes out with a spoon.
Re: (Score:2)
This obviously means that we are going to need better technology. We'll need technology that will be able to give us a full color representation of your completely nude body, but only if you're a hot chick. - Your Friendly local TSA Agent
Couldn't we do this with a lot cheaper technology?
Skip the X-ray machine entirely, and rather than a screen just tape a Playboy up.
Re:Better technology (Score:5, Funny)
This obviously means that we are going to need better technology. We'll need technology that will be able to give us a full color representation of your completely nude body, but only if you're a hot chick.
"Attention passengers, please form 3 lines.
All hot chicks, please line up to your far left, at ramp #1 to scanner, for full color internet/youtube-connected body scanner followed by enhanced patdown.
All normal chicks, please line up at ramp #2 for enhanced pat down and quick scan
All men, please line up at ramp #3, for metal detector.
All felons and terrorists, please move along.
All children, remember that this is the way society has always operated, and is considered normal. No, really -- our Constitution approves of it. Please follow Officer McCarthy for a "special" pat-down.
My apologies for what's likely flamebait. If you're going to paint idealized forms of what this will end up being, at least follow through. Seriously, when I read the first two, I'm all for it. I read the third line, and I wouldn't really mind because I've dealt with metal detectors for years. Add on the next line, and I start to feel a bit uncomfortable, because suddenly I have to wonder how different from reality this really is. The last line makes me wonder what legacy we will leave our future.
The next generation... (Score:3, Interesting)
...will automatically detect suspicious areas of the image and rescan them slowly at high power.
Or they'll just go to transmission x-ray scanners concealed in the metal detector frame.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Having had the dubious pleasure of going through radio-therapy, where the exposure levels are considerably higher than the worst you can imagine a misconfigured X-Ray machine to be, I can tell you that the burns:
a. Take a LOT of radiation to happen (it took me about a week and a half of daily radiation before they did, and when they did, they were internal)
b. Take time to manifest
As such, I doubt your scenario will actually happen. A much more likely one is people dieing from cancer, which takes even longer
Re:The next generation... (Score:5, Informative)
You might have gone through radiotherapy, but these machines work on different frequencies and different energy levels. Yes, the wave energies might not be as high as in radiotherapy, but that doesn't make it less dangerous, it actually means that the skin gets the dosage instead of the body.
The dosage you have received over the course of your treatment was carefully measured and calibrated often. It was also administered by a person trained in radiography and the repercussions of radiation.
Also, remember that the dose applied in the scan is done over a relatively short period. For the sake of an analogy, think of the difference in pressure between a stilletto heel and a boot heel on your foot. One will hurt, the other will go right through you.
Compare the mass of your skin to that of your body, add in that you're getting a dose like that in a short time and then come back to me when you realise that it is actually a very serious health concern.
Yes, IANaRP (nuclear and radiation physicist). Posted anon, because I'd like to keep my job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is called 'last generation' detective work, and has so far been the only tech proven effective in stopping legitimate terrorists. It has the added bonus of not inconveniencing Mom with a touch of the gate-rape on her way to see the kids for the holidays.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The next generation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely. The shoe bomber got through, and his bomb didn't work. Ditto the underpants bomber. Airport security failed miserably. It didn't matter.
As for the liquid bombers, it's still debatable whether their bomb would have worked, but who cares? They never even made it as far as the airport!
I am still waiting for the TSA to present the American people with any evidence -- even the tiniest shred of evidence -- that they have ever once in their entire history caught an actual terrorist.
Re:The next generation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Shreds of evidence are abundant. They've caught people trying to carry guns, knives, screwdrivers, and baby bottles onto airplanes. I don't know what the numbers are, but since they've confiscated several screwdrivers and half-empty soda bottles from me, I'm sure the numbers are huge.
What you're really looking for is solid evidence. Prove that any significant number of threats have been stopped because of any new technology or methodology. The publicized cases were:
1) Shoe bomber. Defeated by his inability to work a book of matches, and stopped by other passengers and flight crew.
2) Underwear bomber. Defeated by his inability to acquire functional explosives. Again, he was stopped by other passengers and flight crew.
3) Binary explosive bomber. The explosives weren't binary (to be mixed for explosion), they were pre-mixed. They never made it anywhere near an aircraft, and were possibly yet another law enforcement operation to catch those who may consider doing something by guiding them far enough to prosecute.
So no, what you see happening in airports is security theater. It creates the illusion of security, because the common citizens have to jump through the hoops, in the name of security.
Re:The next generation... (Score:4, Interesting)
the TSA has been unsuccessful in preventing the (very few) attempted bombings in the recent past yet the attacks still failed.
Arguably, the failures were caused by the fact that they had to go to such great lengths to conceal the explosives. If they had brought on a nice, simple stick of dynamite, they'd almost certainly have succeeded.
You don't actually have to prevent 100% of attacks for security to be useful. A few foiled attacks are extremely handy in providing information and causing your opponents to waste time and energy. But when an attack is partially successful, you do need to increase security to some degree to foil a repetition.
It may not perfectly foil repetitions, but forces your opponents to change tactics, and that doesn't happen instantaneously.
It's not enough to posit that there's something both less intrusive and more effective. You have to actually show such a thing. I don't know if backscatter is optimal for the purpose, but I know it's more effective than taking no action.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The next generation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Why would anyone bother sneaking a bomb through airport security when malls, stadiums, high school graduations, and even the airport security line are such easy and terrifying targets.
The whole usefulness of attacking an airplane is to take control of a multi-million dollar man-guided missile. That's not going to happen any more, with the secure cockpit doors and passengers who aren't likely to along quietly.
Re: (Score:3)
What I did say, though, was that a rudimentary system would have approximately the same effectiveness simply because there are so few attackers to bother protecting against.
And there's the rub, one to which I do not have a good answer. There have indeed been very few attacks in the US, plus a few more in Europe. And yet there are clearly plenty of people willing to blow themselves up to strike at somebody. Look at the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or today in Sweden, for that matter. Why haven't they tried much simpler and effective attacks against something other than airplanes.
The biggest difference is that it's not within the US. It may simply be that those familia
Re: (Score:3)
It's not enough to posit that there's something both less intrusive and more effective. You have to actually show such a thing.
How about this [thestar.com]?
Re:The next generation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Behavioral profiling, such as what is practiced by the Israelis, is both cheaper and more effective than searching for weapons. If we adopted behavioral profiling, screened all baggage for explosives and ran passengers through the air-puff chemical sensors we'd have a system that protects travelers privacy much better, is much more effective and significantly cheaper than our current system.
Explosives are the real threat anymore. A few terrorists wonldn't be able to take over an airplane, not now that the passengers will fight back and the cockpit doors are reinforced. Preventing passengers from bringing things like nail clippers is just asinine.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, most of the "failed terrorist attacks" actually succeeded in making us scared. The "failed" shoe bomber means 800 million people annually now need to take off their shoes every time they go through security, taking a cumulative 760 man-years of time (assuming 30 seconds for on and off), of monetary value $67 million if you assume $10/hour value for the average person's time. The "failed" underwear bomber, now means 800 million domestic airline passengers annually need to be xray-screened, and co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The low risk of terrorism is because while blowing up a plane with a bomb is possible, you're pretty much targeting random people. And if you're going to target random people, you may as well blow up a subway in NYC, or a professional sports game, or the security line at the airport. Same people dead, just as much fear (or more), and a lot less security than what is in our airports. Sure, a plane falling out of the sky will also cause collateral damage on the ground, but that is also very difficult to ai
Re: (Score:3)
Here, I will keep it simple for you. The terrorist in 9/11 tried to instill terror into the people. These actions negate that to a point
Fine, work is ancillary. But the way we are going about "removing" terror is BS. We should be educating people, not playing games with security theater.
Fail. You have no reason to believe that the so called diverted capitol would be used in any way that would promote any economic growth. In fact, hiring TSA agents and manufacturing machines that you don't think is needed is probably providing more economic growth then the alternative of not spending the money at all.
So we should hire morons to do nearly useless tasks so that people "feel" less terror? We shouldn't be spending the money if that's all its value is. Why don't we just hire 2 shifts a day where one digs holes and the other fills them? That's about as productive as what we are currently doing with that money. When there is money, it gets spent, period.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The next generation... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's highly questionable whether the machines are even capable of identifying "suspicious areas of the image." But suppose for a moment that they are. These scanners are already, in themselves, more of a safety hazard than actually flying. They have been through nowhere near the degree of rigorous safety testing and analysis that any component of an aircraft has to go through. While exposure to the intended dose of radiation for a scan may be safe (even that is debatable), the scanning process is software controlled. Imagine if the software crashes in the middle of a scan, or the scanner mechanism sticks.
And now, suppose that it is possible to detect suspicious areas of an image and do a more thorough scan. This simply increases the safety risks of these machines. X-ray scanners? How is that exposure going to be controlled? Is testing ever going to be held to the degree of rigor required for aircraft? If not, why should we be willing to accept the risks of using these machines?
The fact is that if we really care about people taping explosives to their stomachs, the only way to detect this is with a thorough search (a.k.a. "enhanced patdown"). If we are really that concerned about security, that is what every traveler should be subject to. And if we aren't comfortable with searching passengers like that, then we really ought to stop being such cowards and accept the quite minimal risk that someone is going to get one of these Rube Goldberg explosive devices past security and actually succeed in harming an aircraft with it (unlike the shoe-bomber and underwear bomber attempts, which did not harm either aircraft).
Re: (Score:2)
They will come up with a heuristic that will work in 90% of their rigged demos.
The risks will be redefined as required.
The usual way: by promises by the government, which knows what's best for you (the remark about transmission x-ray machines hidden in the metal detector was intended as hyp
Re:The next generation... (Score:4, Insightful)
I basically agree with you, but I'd go one step farther.
Suppose we live in a world of fluffy pink unicorns and candy canes. The fact that we're even posing such a hypothetical scenario is part of the problem; we shouldn't even give them the benefit of the doubt. These pieces of garbage should never have been ordered at taxpayer expense until there was consistent, demonstrable proof of their effectiveness. The safety debate shouldn't even be happening now. The safety, privacy, and medical records debates should be happening ten years from now when they finally build a machine that is effective (read "full body CT scan or MRI scan"), and these worthless, overpriced toys shouldn't even be here.
The fact of the matter is that people described in great detail a number of fairly straightforward attack vectors for circumventing these things before the government even ordered them. The whole "body cavity" problem is so obvious that our government buying these things verges on pure comedy. And before anyone makes the irrelevant claim that you can't hide enough explosives in a body cavity to bring down a plane, I would point out that 9/11 involved 19 people. How much explosive material could you fit in 19 body cavities? If the answer is, as I suspect, "plenty", then these scanners are worthless even if they can detect explosives on the outside of your body.
The only way to reliably detect such things is by knowing your passengers. Even enhanced patdowns are useless against organized terrorist attacks. Profiling really is the only effective means of combatting terrorism, and those who say otherwise are kidding themselves.
Truth is stranger than... (Score:3)
I know you may think you were joking (or perhaps you read the article last year), but someone has actually managed to attempt an assassination (ass-ination?) [cbsnews.com] using--wait for it--one pound of explosives in their colon. The target was Saudi Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, and the assassin managed to fit a pound of PETN inside his posterior.
Re:The next generation... (Score:5, Insightful)
"These scanners are already, in themselves, more of a safety hazard than actually flying. They have been through nowhere near the degree of rigorous safety testing and analysis that any component of an aircraft has to go through."
Consider the level of testing and analysis that the *very same device* would require if it were labeled "medical equipment" rather than "airport security equipment". Consider also the site and personnel licensing required to operate one (probably akin to that required for a modern xray machine).
Re: (Score:3)
The scanner itself isn't the biggest hazard. The biggest hazard is the queue line to get scanned or groped. A terrorist doesn't need to sneak a bomb on a plane to kill dozens of people. All he has to do is stand in line and blow himself up at the right time when there is the highest concentration of people close together.
The other people in line will produce significant casualties and instill all the terror the terrorist would want. Not only would people be afraid of flying and dying but also afraid of
Rad overexposure due to software bugs (Score:3, Informative)
has happened, with terrible results. Different machines of course, but nevertheless a demonstration that shit happens. There's no reason to believe that airport backscatter systems' software is any more reliable than that deployed on systems that have failed disastrously in the past.
See http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Therac_25/Therac_1.html [vt.edu]
for one example.
Re: (Score:3)
While exposure to the intended dose of radiation for a scan may be safe (even that is debatable), the scanning process is software controlled. Imagine if the software crashes in the middle of a scan, or the scanner mechanism sticks.
If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you are getting at the possibility for the scanner to inadvertently deliver a non-safe dose of radiation. If so, yes there is some validity to your concern. I remember hearing a while back that it was discovered some CAT scanners had a software error that was causing it to miscalculate the radiation dosage, and that tons of people had been exposed to much higher levels of radiation than they were supposed to. I have to believe that CAT scanners are held to a much
Re: (Score:3)
CAT scanners too:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/October/14/Hospital-Error.aspx [kaiserhealthnews.org]
Re:It won't need to (Score:5, Insightful)
A security measure that is not perfect can still be good. Okay it can be circumvented by a limited set of actions.
A terrorist attack also doesn't have to be perfect to be good. Neither the shoe, underwear, nor toner-cartridge bombs went off and they still cost $billions. Unfortunately, the long-term economics of this don't favor us.
Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Passengers and cargo are a security risk. Prohibit them from boarding planes, and everyone will be safe.
(Pilots are also a security risk. In the future all planes will fly autonomously, controlled by AIs.)
(Programmers writing the AIs are also a security risk. You know what? Scrap those planes, they're not carrying anything anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
Naked people on a transparent plane - while your suitcases are sent by train/boat. You try hiding a weapon now mister terrorist.
Solution: Eye bleach. (Score:2, Funny)
Considering how a lot of you look naked, that would be enough to force anyone to give up terrorism.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So all of this expense and inconvenience is for stopping the isolated crazy people with no backers.
It's hilarious that we're having to limit the amount of liquids we take on planes, because of undetectable 'binary explosives'. (Which wouldn't work anyway, because, um, duh, multiple people can carry them in.)
Meanwhile, in actual fact we've decided to stop swabbing for actual nitrogen-based explosives. You know, the only explosives that are easy to make or
Re:Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
so, no doubt the TSA staff will soon be equipped with endoscopes and be trained in keyhole surgery to prevent terrorists implanting bombs inside their bodies.
Re:"You won't be detecting that"?! (Score:5, Funny)
NOW you're thinking like a TSA administrator!
Re: (Score:2)
People themselves aren't transparent. They'll swallow their weapon.
Re: (Score:3)
Never under estimate the success of body cavity carriage. A rectal explosive device almost worked recently in Saudi Arabia. Only a little luck (good or bad depending on POV) prevented the attack from killing the target. It WILL be tried again and will eventually work.
People who have nothing to lose will become human bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to worry, just give them desk jobs doing paperwork. Some of them could also work on environmental models showing that the planet is better off without planes anyway.
Wow they don't work and (Score:4, Insightful)
American anthem playing in background.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I propose an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting those in any position of authority in the federal government, to include at a minimum any person who is elected or subject to constitutional confirmation procedures but also those designated by Congress, to be prohibited from working in the private sector in any position of influence or interaction related to their old job, directly or indirectly, for a period of not less than five years, with Congress authorized to extend but not reduce the term by law
Re: (Score:3)
Its a nice sentiment except of course they will all use family members and close friends instead, who will then get the gravy passed back onto the crooks after they "retire" ....
Stopping corruption in governments will require much more radical measures than that method, which by the way was attempted to be applied many times before in many governments, with no results to speak of.
Re: (Score:2)
the former head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff helped sell them to the government and the government mandated them and removed everyone's rights.
Close, but not quite. They still haven't taken away your right to take flying lessons and fly your own damn plane.
It's theater... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to sound like a broken record (does that phase mean anything to people or did I just show my age), but I'm not sure why this surprises anyone. It's not about security. It's about security theater. And until the TSA fundamentally changes the way they do things, it always will be.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"You sound like a broken MP3!" -- Professor Farnsworth.
Re:It's theater... (Score:5, Funny)
Not to sound like a broken record (does that phase mean anything to people or did I just show my age)...
That is right along the lines of "Don't touch that dial."
And personally, I have started using "Not to sound like a scratched record" instead of "Not to sound like a broken record."
If you think about it, a broken record would sound li...
Whereas a scratched record would sound like...record would sound like...record would sound like...
Re:It's theater... (Score:5, Funny)
Not to sound like a [ Buffering.... ]
Re:It's theater... (Score:4, Interesting)
And if you actually try it instead of just thinking about it, you'll find that both broken (cracked) and scratched records can behave very similarly upon playback.
I've been around long enough that I've tried both.
So, in the interest of pedantry, I'd like to say that while your new word usement does seem to be valid, its validation does not seem to in any way invalidate the validity of the previously-valid phrase.
Please feel free to use both terms interchangeably in such contexts as this, for they are synonymous.
Thanks!
Re:It's theater... (Score:5, Informative)
The TSA isn't the problem. Politicians scaring the public, and a public easily scared are the problem.
The TSA is just doing their job.
Re:It's theater... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even theater anymore, it's about the TSA buying expensive machines to make their friends rich.
Re:It's theater... (Score:5, Informative)
... It's about security theater...
Popular to say, but pure nonsense. It's about defense contractors with connections to present and former high-level government "leaders" making truckloads of money.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's something that pissed me off beyond words last time I flew. I stood in line. My photo id and boarding pass were verified. Both my laptops were pulled out of their bags and scanned. My shoes were scanned. I got in the x-ray machine and got to the "secure area".
What's staring me in the face? A fucking TGI Fridays.
Don't worry, I'm sure that, like all franchised eateries, the staff are well-paid, happy, and patriotic, and the turnaround is so low that there is NO WAY that some evil person could get a job there or that the employees would NEVER let a shady character obtain something dangerous.
Explosives detectors (Score:2, Informative)
Yup, experts have been warning about this all year. Meanwhile, explosives detectors (you know, the ones removed from airports last year because they were too much trouble to maintain) seems to be a banned topic in the news.
Unfortunately the TSA now has too much invested to suddenly admit it probably wasn't a good idea to stop using the more effective machines that are less invasive (they were the round swabs on luggage) replaced with the less effective machines that are more invasive.
Re:Explosives detectors (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, experts have been warning about this all year. Meanwhile, explosives detectors (you know, the ones removed from airports last year because they were too much trouble to maintain) seems to be a banned topic in the news.
Meanwhile, we're letting utterly unchecked luggage onto the plane.
Don't worry, we've solved that by banning wifi. Luckily, there's no other way besides wifi and by hand to detonate explosives.
Unfortunately the TSA now has too much invested to suddenly admit it probably wasn't a good idea to stop using the more effective machines that are less invasive (they were the round swabs on luggage) replaced with the less effective machines that are more invasive.
The TSA doesn't have to 'admit' things regardless.
As I've suggested, the TSA should be required to operate something like this:
There is an independent office outside the whole TSA, operated by non-TSA people. Let us all it the TSA Inspector General office.
You show up there and present some object to wish to smuggle past TSA, or take one from them. It doesn't have to be the actual banned object, but it has to be one that would 'serve the function' of the object.
They write down your name and what you're doing. You give them a $100 bond.
If you manage to get that item past TSA, you then got to the IG office on the other side, and explain how you did it, and they pay you $1000 out of TSA's budget. The TSA is not allowed to know your name or any other identifying information so they can't start searching you extra. (The IG's office, OTOH, will know your name and the plane you're going to, and you won't be let on the plane, and be in rather a lot of trouble if you don't show up at their office with the stuff.)
If you don't get it past TSA, you forfeit the bond.
REPEAT.
The very first thing people will do is smuggle 'razor blades'. By the thousands. Easy easy money-making scheme. There's all sorts of ways to hide very sharp things.
At some point, the TSA will stop banning stuff they can't possibly stop. Or go broke. Or actually get to the point where only naked people get through.
Let's call it 'privatized security testing'.
They buy first and *then* test these machines? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They buy first and *then* test these machines? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They buy first and *then* test these machines? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Feel free to laugh at the joke, both of them, but it's real and some statistics have been published on this.)
They are very willing to send a half dozen or more people through in the hopes that one makes it to target.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Do they work and violate our privacy or do they not work and you are lying to us?"
To which the terrorist responds, "Who cares?? We still got you to waste $300 million dollars!!"
Re:They buy first and *then* test these machines? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Who?
I'm deadly serious, if Al Qaeda et al were anything like the threat they're supposed to be, we'd be hearing of attempted bombings every month. With regular successes.
What we hear is of amazing cockups and attempts at blowing things up which are not only jaw-droppingly stupid, but the time it takes for anyone to spot them and say "Hang on a minute... since when did arabs ship printers to synagogues?" is also jaw-dropping.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
See my post [slashdot.org].
Basically, people should be able to put up a $100 bond to attempt to smuggle banned things past TSA, and get rewarded $1000 if they do so.
I hope the authors don't have travel plans (Score:2)
As they write, 'It is very likely that a large (15-20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake [of PETN explosive] with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology. ... It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible.'"
Will probably put them on the do-not-fly list for the rest of eternity. Of course, that won't matter much if they are scientists, since our country is about to start eviscerating the research budgets (and hence they will want to do their work elsewhere) anyways.
The obvious solution... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surgical implantation of explosives. (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
And in related development (Score:5, Interesting)
The Boston Globe reported today that a the mutilated body of a teen boy found last month in a Boston suburb probably fell out of the wheel well of an airplane he is believed to stowed away on. Several articles of his clothing were found scattered along the flight's approach to Boston's Logan Airport.
Earlier this year in Japan a body was discovered in the wheel well of a flight originating at New York's JFK. Investigation later revealed that the unfortunate hadn't stowed away in New York, but in Lagos Nigeria *two months earlier*.
What does this tell you about all this body scanning hoopla? We're building a fortress that sports a fearsome looking portcullis but has open windows on the ground floor.
Easy solution: Bigger scanner. (Score:2)
Put a dome over the airport, or just the whole city. Scan at all times.
They'll promote some sort of biometric implants at some point. You don't have an implant? What are you trying to hide?
There's a reason these problems are never solved. There is more money in fixing/upgrading the gear than there is building it right the first time. CompanyA builds box to current specifications. Turns out those specs suck. CompanyA now given new money to build it better. Rinse. Repeat. As it's been mentioned alre
Re: (Score:3)
This has always puzzled me. The passengers are thoroughly inspected, but I see many airports where you can still reach (and compromise) the planes themselves quite easily.
Re:And in related development (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because airport security is security theater. Even with terrorism and accidents, planes are already the safest way to travel between two points. The security at the airport is just a dog and pony show to reassure fliers and give the impression that the government is "doing something about it". The effectiveness of the security measure is rather meaningless because a 50% reduction in almost-never will still be almost-never.
In fact concern over the new scanners and pat-downs at airports is probably going to kill more people than any terrorists. People uncomfortable with the invasion of privacy may choose to drive to their destination rather than fly. And you're roughly 15-20x more likely to die from an automobile accident than from a plane crash/terrorist incident over a trip of the same distance.
Re: (Score:3)
So the obvious solution for the terrorist contingent is to stuff your bomb into the wheel well, then quietly walk away. No need to get on the plane or go through the silly security system.
Re:And in related development (Score:5, Insightful)
How To? (Score:2)
This report is likely to be taken as a how to do it manual for some creeps. The bad guys probably know about this sort of thing anyway I suppose.
They can't stop a lot (Score:2)
But so what? Even if they manage to keep every single weapon off the plane, it is still simple enough to hijack. All you have to do is fill the plan completely full of Al Qaeda drones. Pick a plane going to Saudi Arabia and you have a perfect cover, a plane full of people, everything you need. If you can choose your seat
Milimeter wave RF scanners too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this same condition exist for the Millimeter Wave RF scanners too, or do they have better resolution or discrimination abilities?
I haven't traveled much since these scanners went into effect, but so far I've only seen the RF scanners.
Last time I encountered one I asked the TSA rep if it was RF or X-ray, and she said "It's millimeter wave, and it's the same as an ultrasound". I told her that that can't be true since an ultrasound doesn't use RF energy, and she said "It *is* the same, now move along". I reported her misinformation to a supervisor, but I'm not sure he even understood the difference between ultrasound and an RF scanner.
I'm fine with the RF scanners (I don't think they are all that effective since a determined terrorist will use one of the many holes in airport security to bring in his weapon -- plus my "junk" isn't all that interesting), but I don't like being lied too (or worse someone directing me into a device that she doesn't even have a basic understanding of -- surely the difference between sound and RF energy is not too hard for a TSA agent to understand)
Re:Milimeter wave RF scanners too? (Score:5, Insightful)
surely the difference between sound and RF energy is not too hard for a TSA agent to understand.
You overestimate how much the average person knows about science, never mind a TSA agent.
And don't call me Shirley.
Re: (Score:3)
Level of Education Required
Federal Agent (FBI/CIA/etc) > Detective > Beat Cop > Prison Guard > TSA Agent
So yes, it is too hard for them to understand.
Don' say I missed, less'n y'know where I was aimin (Score:5, Insightful)
>not very effective (PDF) even in their intended role
You're implicitly buying in to the claim that their intended role has something to do with safety.
The purpose of a system is what it does. The ~$200,000 scanner purchases funnel tax money to a company which made payments to the former director of Homeland Security. They condition people to being treated like prisoners. The first was deliberate.
They're working perfectly.
Backscatter is not a bomb detector (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't realize that backscatter is an imaging tool and not a bomb detector. It requires a human operator to interpret the image. If the bomb is well blended into body contours, there is a high probability that the operator would miss it. If you look at the backscatter sales literature (it's on their web sites) it shows images of people with concealed knives or guns. Stuff that would also set off a metal detector.
In my opinion, it is a little disingenuous that the TSA is using the bomb threat as the justification to switch from metal detectors to backscatter. One of the reasons that the shoe and underwear bombers failed is they weren't able to conceal a proper detonator (which contains metal), and resorted to trying jerry rig a lighted fuze detonator. So in that sense, the metal detectors did do their job. But if concealed explosives were the primary threat, then x-ray in tandem with bomb sniffing dogs or some type of actual bomb detector would be more effective. The other downside to imaging is the human operator spends hours looking at thousands of passengers. There is a good chance that the operator won't be alert enough to spot a bomb or weapon, even when it is not perfectly concealed.
It Comes to This (Score:5, Funny)
Adam Savage of Mythbusters (Score:4, Insightful)
Adam Savage of Mythbusters walked through a backscatter with two 12" razor blades [youtube.com] and they never noticed.
Re:Adam Savage of Mythbusters (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, you sir, are incorrect. If you watch the video, you can note he specifically says he walked through the body scanner and he found the blades on his person. There were some airports that the TSA was testing the scanners in when this was filmed back in May.
Outrage! (Score:3)
Stop Helping The Terrorists!
These guys Leon and Joseph working at their fancy 'university' are clearly on an ego trip, revealing such secret information through their 'research', and publishing it through their rogue 'scientific journal'. They should put a warrant out for these guys, or better yet, an assassination drone.
The real cost of this 'free information'! Will nobody think of the innocent TSA agents this will embarrass? How can the security industry survive if you keep downing their products with such facts. Security and survaillance systems, voting machines - all information on such vital systems to our democracy and freedom must remain a secret to protect our innocent pretty little heads.
And Soulskill! how dare you post 'a story' here with and actual link to the original document in PDF format! you are not helping anybody. How will the link farm owners buy new shoes for their kids now? Will nobody think of the kids! They could've at least included some x-rays of kids on their paper - to demonstrate how effective the machine are at showing every part and crevice of their bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Give everyone a knife!
Wait...ELAL already does that.