The Ineffectiveness of TSA Body Scanners 494
TheNextCorner points out a video that lays bare a glaring flaw in the TSA body scanners used in airports to detect weapons and explosives. In such scans, citizens are depicted in light colors, while metallic objects show as very dark. The problem comes when you consider that the images are taken with a dark background. From the transcript:
"Yes that’s right, if you have a metallic object on your side, it will be the same color as the background and therefore completely invisible to both visual and automated inspection. It can’t possibly be that easy to beat the TSA’s billion dollar fleet of nude body scanners, right? The TSA can’t be that stupid, can they? Unfortunately, they can, and they are. To put it to the test, I bought a sewing kit from the dollar store, broke out my 8th grade home ec skills, and sewed a pocket directly on the side of a shirt. Then I took a random metallic object, in this case a heavy metal carrying case that would easily alarm any of the “old” metal detectors, and walked through a backscatter x-ray at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. On video, of course. While I’m not about to win any videography awards for my hidden camera footage, you can watch as I walk through the security line with the metal object in my new side pocket."
Surprise it took that long (Score:5, Interesting)
The only surprising thing here is that it took so long for such an easy work-around to come to light. It's not that there are very few people working with those scanners on a daily basis, and I bet plenty of TSA front-line personnel will discuss those scanners and how they work with their friends.
Re:Scanner image hoax (Score:5, Interesting)
Any time you see a "scan image" that shows hair of any kind, it's fake.
The radiation penetrates clothing. Why would it not penetrate hair? Indeed, we all look lumpy *and* bald going through the scanner.
It was obvious the first time these images went 'round.
--
BMO
I don't care how effective they are. (Score:4, Interesting)
They invade citizens' privacy, and because of that, I think they should be gone.
"For the children," "to stop the terrorists," "ban technology X because of the actions of a few," they're all the same thing. All that's needed is increased cockpit security and citizen awareness. No privacy violations are necessary or even wanted.
Re:Surprise it took that long (Score:2, Interesting)
It's like the emperor's new clothes...
Except people are afraid that they'll be locked away in Guantanamo Bay for showing people how to circumvent federal security measured put in place to thwart terrorists.
Disheartening (Score:4, Interesting)
yup (Score:5, Interesting)
I was part of a team bringing forward a competing technology to those scanners (standoff biometrics, no weird imaging, ~5 different measurements, easy to beat one, hard to beat them all). We thought we had won the tests. At least, we found all the people sneaking stuff in during our test and we knew they couldn't have detected certain things - like explosives, which they still can't see.
Due to the nature of my sensor work, much of my clothing is covered in explosives residue. A good scanner should really pick me out every time, but I only ever get "caught" when I'm selected for random screening.
We were pretty surprised when we found out they were selected. I guess we should have worked harder on our lobbying and less on our engineering.
Re:Test First (Score:1, Interesting)
Go back to the old scanners. Try again in a few years with better tech if you actually create some.
Why would you do that when you can sell useless machines now and then sell slightly less useless machines again in a few years?
You seem to be under the impression that the scanners are supposed to achieve something other than enriching the people who make them.
Their not useless, their causing cancer just as intended.
Re:yup (Score:4, Interesting)
do you have a proven track record of being able to produce 100 000 units? What's your typical cost/cost overun on a project that size?
Business is business. Engineering is part of business, but if you're advertising the greatest thing ever for 100 dollars that is supposedly 10x than what everyone else is selling for 1000 people are rightfully skeptical that you can actually deliver the product on time, and on budget. That doesn't mean you can't, and yes in any business advertising (or in the case of the US government lobbying) matters tremendously, but there can be non obvious factors at play.
As with anything you might really have been trumped by 'strategic concerns' (you weren't going to create enough jobs, in the right districts, or pay the right campaign kickbacks), but you might have just not seemed honest, being the only honest one in a room full of crooks.
TSA is an expense account scam (Score:5, Interesting)
The inquisition (yes, that one [malleusmaleficarum.org]) was an expense account scam. Since the accused was required to pay for their own inquisition, the system simply padded the expenses to the limit of the available money.
The TSA is the same thing. People wail and moan about how stupid/intrusive/incompetent/useless they are, and miss the larger picture.
The TSA sends money to corporations, and the corporations grease the political wheels.
There's no rocket science, no ulterior motive, nothing else to consider. Like the inquisition, the TSA doesn't need to justify expenditures with usefulness or effectiveness. The more they spend, the more they get to spend. Cause and effect.
Why do you think they spend billions on technology, but pay only slightly above the minimum wage and spend so little on training?
People keep grousing about the TSA as if that will make a difference. It won't. They have been generally incompetent from the start, and there's nothing that people can do to unseat them from their position.
Voting hasn't helped. Contacting representatives hasn't helped. Complaining to the TSA or their employees hasn't helped. Legal action hasn't helped.
There's one obvious remaining course of action we can take to rein in all the government waste and corruption. Can anyone think of things to try before we take that last drastic step? I'm out of ideas...
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure. Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold, and effectively killing them, than all terrorist attacks of all history combined, and people who do the real harm get rewarded for it ("too big to jail"). I mean, it's not like people have this inate tendency to be hateful towards freedom and generosity -- it's just that that's all pretty much BS, and for all we know, every single terrorist was trained by the CIA, because that's what's needed to keep people in check and the actual wolves running wild. That surely would make more sense than the hilarious explanation you're offering. Thanks for the chuckle though.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Interesting)
At the time of the 9/11/2001 attacks, it was legal to bring a box cutter aboard an airplane.
Another way this security theater is easily bypassed is in the case of liquids. Currently, the TSA will only allow a passenger through the security check with 100ml containers of any given liquid. Want to bring an entire liter of liquid aboard an airplane? Just go through the security checkpoint ten times, each time carrying a single 100ml. You'll have a liter inside security. You could also have ten friends each bring in 100ml and combine it when you get past the security checkpoints. This is all fake. It's all BS masquerading as doing something for the sake of security.
Seth
Re:Surprise it took that long (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. I was worried about the TSA folks having a cow about my valve oil, so I dutifully packed it in a plastic bag for my first post-9/11 trip with an instrument, wondering if I'd have to dispose of it anyway. I don't think anyone else brought bags, and as far as I could tell, nobody got pulled aside. (I waited around as folks went through just in case I needed to pass somebody a spare plastic bag.)
It's kind of scary to realize (in hindsight) that between the couple of dozen brass players, we probably walked through the TSA checkpoint with between fifty and a hundred fluid ounces of light petroleum distillates (basically kerosene) without comment....
If we had been terrorists, I suspect that the plane would not have reached its destination. It scares the crap out of me to realize that in spite of all their amateur theatrics, we're really not significantly safer than we were before.
Re:SSDD (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Test First (Score:5, Interesting)
The one thing I do not understand is why is this happening in so many countries. Is it that easy to get rich everywhere - just make ridiculous, useless, 6-figure machines? In London, there is not even a pat-down option if you are selected (so I am not flying out of there).
The skill is not in the making of the machines. The skill is in selling them.
And who benefits from the ridiculous 3-ounce liquid rules, besides the vendors inside airports??
The machine vendors, for example. They benefit from the whole fear-mongering that's going on here. Because liquids are forbidden because they're so dangerous, and can not be detected by metal detectors, so you need a machine that can detect them.
Or if you would like to truly enter conspiracy theory terrain: maybe the whole liquid-explosives scare was just a scam. After all not a single plane was blown up. The liquids were not even mixed to explosive yet. They weren't even taken to the airport yet. No they were found in someones home instead! Wasn't this maybe a plot of corrupt government people colluding with naked body scanners?
Re:Surprise it took that long (Score:5, Interesting)
Why long? Two years ago (Jan 2010), a guy in german TV demonstrated [youtube.com] how to get enough stuff past the body scanners to build a thermite bomb, including the lighter. And the body scanner was operated by a service person from the manufacturer during the demonstration.
Hunter S. Thompson took his own life (Score:4, Interesting)
I read somewhere that he shared me own diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder. That's a bad diagnosis if You Are The NRA.
I have an Idaho state gun safety card and my father was a Naval officer so I know how to handle a gun with complete safety. but I don't go near the things not because I would fail the background check but because I know very well that the day would be bound to come when I start shooting at my own hallucinations.
I have a close friend who is licensed for concealed carry because her clients are suchnwarm fuzzy people. She takes all the same medicines I do yet is completely unaware that she is severely in the grip of paranoid schizophrenia.
I hallucinate on a regular basis but for reason I have been struggling to figure out for decades I always can readily distinguish between what I really see and what my mind makes me experience as seeing. note that that does not make the hallucinations go away, it just enables me to sanitize my input.
But rather frightening to me is that a whole bunch of times my friend gas pointed out her hallucinations to me then either gone chasing after them or fled from them.
The federal gun background check is completely cool with batshit crazy people purchasing all manner of powerful firearms. bur perfectly sane people check into psychiatric inpatient units for reasons that are completely resolved upon their discharge. At that point they are not permitted to possess firearms for the next five years. Not only may they not purchase any they must surrender any guns already in their possession.
I've been struggling desperately to clue my friend into the fact that she is paranoid and that she hallucinates. Even more frustrating than the drug addict's denial is that she readily agrees and in fact can discuss her madness quite insightfully, yet she remains unaware if what her medicines are prescribed for. Once we stop actively discussing her paranoia she becomes completely enmeshed in it again.
Re:Test First (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Test First (Score:4, Interesting)
All of which goes out the window when you realize that you can easily bring an unlimited amount on board as long as a) you're willing to separate it into 3oz containers, and b) if you end up with more of them than will fit in a ziplock, you need to bring a friend.
Security is a good thing. Security theater is not.
Re:Test First (Score:5, Interesting)
But there's no need...
Being killed by a terrorist on a plane doesn't even make a damn blip on the ways you're likely to die. It *barely* makes a blip on damages to U.S. infrastructure.
The TSA exists solely because it can, and because people want money. Some people are making a lot of money on all of this nonsense and that's all that matters. This isn't some conspiracy theory or otherwise, just simple economics. There was an opening to make a buck, someone took it and here we are.
9/11 was caused by some box cutters, it could have been just as easily accomplished with nothing (let's face it, people weren't scared of the little knife they were shocked because something threatened them and most modern people are cowards). The (head of the) TSA knows this, they also know there is a lot of money in fear.
Re:SSDD (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, this is both an insightful and informative post. If people want to understand why the world is the way it is, this type of thing is a good place to start. The US military has been the enforcement arm of corporate America for a century if not longer. The wars and conflicts we have engaged in have had much more to do with that than with freedom, or liberty or human rights, or any of the other claptrap the media sell us.
And yes, Curunir_wolf, you are a crackpot. You are a crackpot because none of this dynamic is ever explained to the American people, and they will look at you like you are crazy if you try to explain it. They can't fathom that Brian Williams could be bullshitting them (whether he knows it or not). So they walk around with their heads up their asses about how their country actually operates on the world stage. Thanks for the links.