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.'"
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:The next generation... (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.
Surgical implantation of explosives. (Score:2, Informative)
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, 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: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.
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.
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.