New Body Scanners Installed In Airports 269
KahunaBurger writes "The Boston Globe has an article today titled "Rights backers fight scanner that gets under clothes". The US customs service has installed new scanners in five major US airports "that can see through passengers' clothes and search for contraband with an image that shows the naked body." Rights activists are equating this to a 'electronic strip search.' I don't know; getting frisked always makes me feel like a bad guy on COPS.
Re:There's another option... (Score:1)
What would you do if all water companies started putting some chemical in the water that 10% of the population was allergic too? There *ARE* other alternatives and you "don't have a right to every single convenience that some company has to offer." no? You could stock up on bottled water, dig a well, boil all your water before use. Right? Wrong. Air transportation is no different.
Read "Hard Landing", it's a great read on the airline industry.
Re:Bad things (Score:1)
Public bathroom stalls are entirely optional, as is joining the army. While this tech may start out with limited use, you can bet that when the jackboots and spooks see it's use, it'll become omnipresent.
And if you think profiling being illegal will stop it, you need to get a clue.
People against this are nuts! (Score:1)
Re:Bad things (Score:1)
But it isn't private enterprise doing this, it's the government. And they won't recognize any lines of industry or methods of travel. They'll implement it wherever they can push it, til it's happening to random people on the street without their knowledge.
Private enterprise can limit who uses their services however they want. Government has no business screwing with my right to privacy and to travel freely from state to state (and beyond).
Re:Health concerns? (Score:1)
Re:Bad things (Score:2)
I can't say it any better.
Anyone remember Benny Hill airport security skit? (Score:2)
The next guy in line is wearing camoflage fatigues, body armor, grenade launcher on his back, machine gun in hand, several hundred rounds of ammo draped about his neck, torso ringed with sticks of dynamite and a timer.
Benny Hill just waves him through! :)
What ever happened to the good British humorists?
Here are some links (Score:2)
A previous Slashdot article on this: http://slashdot.org/articles/99
A previous CNN article (from 1997): http://cnn.com/TECH/9702/11/body.scanner s/ [cnn.com]
A previous PRWeb article (from 1998): http://www.prweb.com/releases/1998
Having a relative that works with this company, and does the installations, I can tell you that their equipment is used primarily to search vehicles for drugs and weapons, not people. Some of their major installations are on the US/mexico border, and South Africa.
The vast majority of their sales are of their vehicle scanning units. They have very few of the BodySearch scanners in use. Most of those are also at "border patrol" facilities, and are intended more as "cavity search" methods than as a general search.
Furthermore, you are almost always given the choice whether or not to be scanned. Take your pick: black and white scan that shows little to no detail? Or rubber glove full body cavity search? I think it's an obvious choice.
Re:Long time now ... (Score:3)
I hate to shatter your ignorance, but there are no plastic guns. You've bought hook line and sinker into HCI's propaganda about the Glock's and similar handguns. They have plastic grips and a plastic coated frame, but the slide and barrel are good old-fashioned steel and register to any metal detector.
Even if you were to use some sort of ceramic or whathaveyou to make a weapon which doesn't register to a metal detector, the bullets will.
What's the big deal? (Score:4)
Re:Total Recall (Score:1)
> expect in the future when technology is
> concerned.
Dear god! You mean C.H.U.D. is REAL!?
:)
Re:Why do we need a screen? (Score:2)
The computer itself could do the check.
Except that there are many such objects that one may be carying about without being a potential terrorist. Think of metal pens, metal belt buckles, a bunch of keys, coins, ... Also, how about things like dental fillings and all that? Consider also that the objects are likely to be moving about during the whole process, especially when there is no human operator around. It's very easy for a human to identify the kind of objects I menstioned for what they are, but making a computer do it reliably is an other matter.
The reliability is a major issue. A single false negative can virtually kill the company or deploying agency. Yet, too many false positives and the whole automation isn't worth the investment either.
I'm not saying that it cannot be done and in fact I'm quite sure that it will be done at some point, but...
--
anyone see that Clint Eastwood movie? (Score:1)
The point is, bullets are small enough that you could hide them without too much difficulty.
Re:Long time now ... (Score:2)
Lets throw around some real ideas on how to detect contraband,
Couple the AI system with an MRI like scan to assist it in detecting objects on your person. Perhaps an X-ray and MRI combination with image display.
It also seems to me that the current scanner could be fine if the screen display were deliberatly lo-res or blurry.
Better training on the part of flight crews and anti-hijack devices on planes might prevent the whole problem. The flight crew has a natural advantage over most hijackers in that they can fly the plane and the hijacker usually can't. Anesthetic gas into the cabin (with pilot on oxygen), sounds like a cheezy movie, but it could actually work. Even if the hijacker gets into the cockpit, he now has a choice of passing out or having the pilot pass out. Right now, IF the hijacker gets on the plane, the hijacking itself is fairly easy (reletive term). Make that part hard enough and there will be less hijack attempts in the first place. It would also bring a quick end to attempts by the stupid ones.
Re:Why you have to show the skin onscreen (Score:2)
How do they know when the system isn't working?
The magic floating suitcases would be a good clue.
Re:Long time now ... (Score:2)
Unfortunatly, with any gas option you run the risk of people being hyper-allergenic to them.
Very true, but everyone is allergic to bullets, bombs, and knives being plunged into their bodies. What is needed to avoid the liability issues is a safety regulation that requires the airlines to have this. They can't be sued for it then.
Re:Long time now ... (Score:2)
Just start shooting people untill they drop the oxygen masks.
Either the hijacker or everyone who knows how to drop the masks will be unconscious. Anesthetic gas works even if mixed with oxygen. In general portable medical oxygen systems do not exclude the surrounding atmosphere, they just enrich the oxygen level.
I agree that a political hijacker probably wouldn't mind if the pilot passes out, but in that case, very little would. You can't negotiate with someone who already has what he wants (hostages and media coverage). There is still the probability of the political hijacker failing to get the pilot's oxygen mask in time.
In summary, it's not foolproof, but it's better than nothing, and would work in many cases.
Re:Long time now ... (Score:2)
How about pressure?
No flames here, I'd thought about that too. It has the advantage of only requiring a modification to existing systems. The reason I went with gas was the liklihood of complications of anesthetic vs. oxygen deprivation. Of course, it does have less risk of complications than being shot does.
I enjoyed 'The Langoliers' (sp?).
Re:Why you have to show the skin onscreen (Score:2)
When was the last time you flew? You don't carry your suitcases through the metal detector, speedy.
Yes, but the body scanner is NOT the metal detector. It's just a matter of where in the gauntlet the body scanner is placed. Either just before you place carry-on on the conveyer (for the X-ray), or right after you pick it up again would be fine.
Re:Long time now ... (Score:2)
In most cases of political hijacks, none, or only a few of the hostages are killed. You seem to be willing to gamble with the lives of the passengers. I'd say the pilot passing out is a big loss.
The pilot passing out is an unlikely worst case scenario. In order for that to happen, the hijacker must first enter the cockpit without arousing suspicion. That can be made a great deal harder by keeping the door to the cockpit locked at all times (and made strong enough). Next the hijacker has to wrestle the face mask off of the pilot before the gas takes effect. Anesthetic gasses are very fast these days (in some cases, under a second).
I suspect strongly that it would save a lot more passengers than it would kill.
It's nothing fancy ... (Score:1)
... they just bought up all those handycams with the infrared option that can be used in the daylight! Instant x-ray glasses :-)
Re:I don't see the big problem (Score:1)
Now, the implementation of this does not have anything to do with searching for bombs or guns. It has to do with searching for drugs. And this is yet another piece of our liberty that we are supposed to sacrifice so we can get those drug dealers and 'save the children'. This is yet another attempt to get around the fourth amendment. Some of you have said you think this is ok. That you'd rather have that than being strip searched/etc.
Ok, so why not put these in cop cars. You know, so instead of pulling you over or aside, they can just sit in their car and check you out to see if you are packing any drugs? I mean, it's more convenient than having them pull you over and try and force you to let them conduct an illegal search right?
I Would flash for them... (Score:1)
Simplicity Generates Ubiquity, and a Solution (Score:5)
The parallels to not being able to move from city to city without the proper papers are striking, and while slippery slope logic may be fallacious, there's some pretty empirical evidence that this slope is very slippery, though it takes years to take the trip.
It is likely that the widespread presence of human scanning equipment would lead to mandatory "virtual strip searches" on everyone who passed through, just as the rather private contents of one's pockets and purses must be shown to an X-Ray technician in order to fly.
And strangely enough, should the equipment be there, this would absolutely be the right thing to do in terms of maintaining security.
C'mon. Many of us are network engineers here. If we don't thoroughly check the content that client software passes our servers, we're lambasted for excess trust as we should be. Network security is not different from physical security--the problem is that while packets don't mind being poked, prodded, analyzed, and logged, humans have a...somewhat different perspective. Worse, a human client can piggyback much more than a CGI exploit in their, um, packets.
Greater risk, with a higher "cost" of alleviating that risk. Ouch.
Frisking is undeniably more invasive than any scanner, but the high privacy cost means that agents cannot afford to roughly fondle every member of the public. The selection process used is guaranteed to incorporate profiles that are, at minimum, more accurate than chance, but much, much more questionable for political reasons. The entire quandry of getting full coverage on identified profiles without specifically inconveniencing those parties is cleanly avoided by a quick hands-free scan.
Security up, highly inconvenienced innocents who match the profile down.
Unfortunately, there's the whole problem of T&D.
Happily, this problem can be removed with some amount of programming. You're looking for an algorithm that takes the three input "discoveries"--
A) Blank backdrop
B) Skin
C) Object thicker than clothing that is obscuring skin
--and flags the machine operator if a given subject possesses any obvious non-skin segments in his scan. Should there be a hit, the computer could execute a filtering operation where the background flesh was erased from the foreground object, and a chart on the screen would overlay the shape of the object over live video of the subject. Should the only offending object be something that the agent could see directly on the person(such as a heart shaped belt buckle), the individual would be waved on. Only if the unidentified object could still not be easily explained by questioning the target would either a pat down search or a full scan need be executed.
Such a solution would prevent inappropriate context from being passed to the shape analysis system(another human) while still allowing universal, non-profiled, secure scanning of aircraft clients wishing to be granted access to company hardware.
I would feel safer with this system.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Hmmm... (Score:2)
I also go through a metal detector each time. I don't think this is a privacy invasion either. Now, I've never actually had to be frisked before. This said, though, I think I'd rather step in front of a machine than be frisked, as long as the machine was safe.
I do remember the screenshots posted last time this was brought up on Slashdot several months ago. Somehow I don't think the images from this thing will ever get onto any porn site; even the sickest freak out there wouldn't want these. Yeah, the gender of the person being scanned is pretty obvious (the Slashdot folks all got a good laugh out of that). But it's not like a photograph; it's more like a low-power X-ray with extremely little in the way of detail (the outline isn't even very clear, and certainly not as detailed as this article would have you believe).
I would prefer something low-powered enough that there wouldn't be any detail at all, but you run the risk of killing the scanner's effectiveness then. I do hope they work on something like that, though. It'd put a lot more people's minds at ease.
I disagree (Score:1)
might be a negligable risk for an occasional
traveler could add up to being a sizable risk for
someone who is exposed every day. Ever gotten
a little dizzy from the gasoline fumes while
filling your car? Me too, and although I doubt
it's had any long term effects because I don't
need to fill the tank very often, if it happened
multiple times every day, I'd probably try harder
to avoid it (hold my breath?)
Health concerns? (Score:3)
prefer not to get cancer in 30 years just because
of genetic corruption caused through exposure to
radiation...
X-Ray Glasses (Score:2)
Re:Good vs Bad (Score:1)
Good vs Bad (Score:2)
There are laws that prevent unlawful search and seazure, and I think this steps overthe line. I understand the need to scan my luggage, I don't mind. I understand the need to have me pass through a metal detector, that's cool also. But to have to (in effect) stand naked infront of someone I don't know and don't know his/her mental state creeps me out. And that is what you have to do...someone who may or may not have perverted intentions, will be staring at your naked body as you pass by. Think of the other issue...what if someone monitoring the system were to sneak in a camera, take a few shots, and posts the pics on the internet. LAWSUIT TIME!
The question is this...do you want to risk shots of your husband/wife being posted to a.b.p.e.voyeurism? Or your teenager to a.b.p.e.Teens? Or perhaps your child on the pedophile groups? Is that level of security (considering that today's is very good as it stands) worth your naked image set as a background for some spotty, zit-faced, fat, no-lifed, sexual retard's computer where he can wank off to it like monkeys at the zoo?
Didn't think so...
Phoenix
"The universe is a gun, and they're pointing it at me"
Re:Good Thing?Bad thing (Score:3)
Anyway, before I lost my driver's licence (proper photo id) they "searched" my laptop computer by passing this chemically wetted cloth over it. Didn't even open the lid to see if it worked or if it was really contained nothing but bomb materials.
I feel safer driving my car. Sure, it doesn't go 560mph and takes several times as long at an average of 85mph to see the family, but if security is that dumb, perhaps the maintainance is lacking too. Statisticaly, mile per mile, its safer to fly. Its more fun too. But, I like to take ground based trips and get to see more and don't have to deal with "terrorists."
I don't see the big problem (Score:2)
--
Re:Bad things (Score:1)
Often accidents at home are your own fault, or then a machine breaks down and there's not much you could've (known to) done about it..
Re:Getting Blown Up Feels Worse (Score:1)
Sounds ludicrous? Yes, and so does your fallacy.
Anecdotal evidence makes for good soundbites, but it doesn't really help your argument much. The way you word it, you get a choice of either being searched or blown up. In reality, such cases are VERY rare, and may not be worth the loss of rights this might entail (Some people would gladly take the 1 in a million chance instead of being treated like cattle).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:uncool (Score:2)
Many people don't like to be looked at by anyone who could be attracted to them, whether they are or not (unless they are dating, married, etc). This would naturally include the opposite sex and homosexuals. Since when is it homophobic? I'd call it modesty - esp. since the original poster practically bent over backwards to state that he was not trying to be homophobic.
This militant political correctness bullshit is getting very old...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Bad things (Score:2)
First, you are basically stating that this will save tons of lives. Will it really? Very few people die in hijackings and airline bombings, and this won't do a damn thing about iced wings or engine failure. No disrespect to those who have lost family due to airline violence, but there are a large number of things that have killed far more people.
This is speculation, but I bet far more people die in household accidents yearly than do in airline hijackings and bombings. What is the most likely solution? Why, cameras in homes of course - privacy is of little concern when your child could drown in the tub or you can crack your head changing a light bulb on a vaulted ceiling. This could save lives, right?
Right?
Anyhow, your comment that you were in the military is hardly surprising. Shave the hair off, wear the same clothes, shout the same words, make your bed just so. Conform, conform, conform. While one could make the argument that this is of some use for the military (I wouldn't believe it, but...), most of us civilians would prefer to behave like men and women and not herd animals.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Side effects (Score:1)
That would be a real nuisance. All the cute girls would die of skin cancer, from being scanned over and over.
Re:Not mandatory (Score:1)
Offering a choice isn't bad, but if it's a choice between being hanged or being shot[0], I would really like a third choice, being "Sod all this, I'm going home."
So you're missing the point. What if you don't agree to being searched/scanned/frisked at all? What choices do you have then? Can you tear up your ticket and go home? Or will you find a couple of Big Friendly Men-In-Blue blocking your way?
[0] Deliberate outrageous example
Re:I don't see the big problem (Score:1)
Re:A little bit of freedom or a lot of safety (Score:1)
Schools, bars, what's next?
Stuff like this has a tendency to creep around. And it does so gradually, so people don't really notice. So, how long will it take for these scanners to enter the schools or the corner bar?
Not everyone will be pissed... (Score:1)
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
Re:Good vs Bad (Score:2)
> don't know and don't know his/her mental state creeps me out.
> And that is what you have to do...someone who may or may not
> have perverted intentions, will be staring at your naked body
> as you pass by.
Now, that's something that'd odd to understand. What kind of twisted logic would make someone not want to be naked in front of a stranger? Everybody is made the same way, so why being naked be something awfully special? Why so big a deal?
I remember reading about some naturist camp where, each second week or so, nearby farmers would setup a marketplace to sell their fruits and vegetables. One (farmer) woman interviewed said that what she found most shocking was not that everyone went around naked (she didn't), but that after 30 minutes, she found that perfectly normal!!!
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
Same-sex Ops and hiding your drugs (Score:1)
As long as this is optional, that's fine with me. If it were mandatory it might be an issue. Either way, I don't think that this is going to cut down on terrorism or drug smuggling in any significant way. Most of us have been bringing our drugs back and forth to the US by sticking them up our asses anyhow.
-lx
Re:What about kids? (Score:1)
Anyone who supports these things is clearly a pedophile, or someone who aids and abets pedophiles! Therefore, they must be banned!
Isn't that the only argument that beats "the terrorist threat" these days?
Re:heh... (Score:1)
Re:X-Ray Glasses (Score:1)
proper use (Score:1)
But because it could easily be used on everyone, then It probably will be used far more extensively than strip searches. I really don't think this will make us any safer. What i personally dread are the snide remarks made by the guards viewing the images.
Re:Bad things (Score:2)
Is having to use the bathroom any more optional than taking a plane somewhere? Do you have the RIGHT to take a plane where you want to go and if you disagree with certain security protocols then they are impeding on your rights?
Too many people think that they are entitled to things...air travel is a luxury, not your god-given right. Drive if you disagree, but I suspect that you will get over it and take the flight.
Naked or not? You be the judge. (Score:2)
A. Michael Froomkin [mailto],
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
Re:Not mandatory (Score:1)
When you buy a plane ticket, do you implicitly give consent for a strip search if the security detail deems it necessary? I can see them trying to justify it through probable cause arguments, but if you decide not to get on the plane the airport security shouldn't have one ounce of power over you.
Furthermore, how can we trust that no records are being kept. Wouldn't a nice black and white photo be handy for prosecution purposes... I know I don't want my ass on airportscannergayporn.com. Id also really rather not have the lowest denominator security guard squeezing my sack either, thank you. Depending on the nature of the trip, I just might decide to stay home and spend my vacation with a lawyer.
-BW
Re:Pictures! (Score:3)
Not new techonology ... (Score:1)
I was a bit
Re:Not mandatory (Score:1)
Where is this "strip search" coming from? Strip search isn't discussed in the article. The scanner is a voluntary alternative to being frisked, which is already being done. If you don't want to be scanned, you can be frisked. Being searched invades your privacy, but with the new scanners you get a choice. I fail to understand why offering a choice is bad.
As for invading privacy due to security checks, it's too bad it's necessary. However, it would be foolish to ignore the freaks, criminals and terrorists out there, that would like to hijack planes, hostage people, or go on a killing spree for whatever reason they have. I feel safer, not because I'm searched, but because the other person is. And he/she feels safer because I'm searched. And yes, no security check is 100% waterproof. But even if they reduce the number of hijacks, hostages or other casualties by 10%, it's worth the little price.
Furthermore, how can we trust that no records are being kept.
You really think that putting hundreds of such machines on thousands of airports, that illegally take pictures will be kept a secret? In a country like the US?
Wouldn't a nice black and white photo be handy for prosecution purposes?
I think the prosecution will have a hard time getting an illegally obtained picture admitted as evidence.
I know I don't want my ass on airportscannergayporn.com.
Hmmm. I didn't know the scanners could detect someones sexual preferences. I also don't think security officers will let you do any sexual acts with a partner in front of the scanner.
Furthermore, it's kind of hard to keep the fact that such scanners take illegal pictures a secret when you post them on a website, isn't it? And if you read the article, you'll see that the images won't show any details. You really think people would pay to see an image of your blurred ass?
-- Abigail
Re:uncool (Score:1)
That's something that has been answered a long, long time ago. If you don't want to be visually inspected, or touched without consent, you don't enter places where they do security checks, like airports, or concerts. You can always drive, take a private plane, or listen to a CD.
Planes and concerts aren't private places; you are there with a lot of other people. Which means that your rights aren't absolute - others have rights too. The right for safety for instance. Or fresh air. That's why on my airports you get checked, and on many flights, you aren't allowed to smoke.
-- Abigail
Re:Long time now ... (Score:1)
And neither is there a way to stop Murphy from dropping planes out of the air. 100% security isn't possible, but even catching 50% of the bad guys means more safety. Safety is about *reducing* chances things go wrong - not a "don't bother if doesn't eliminate the risk". It's like seatbelts in a car. Seatbelts didn't stop people from dying in car accidents, but it saved a lot of lives.
-- Abigail
Re:Long time now ... (Score:1)
That would be a bummer for the hijacker that hijacks a plane to get a large amount of money. However, it doesn't work for the political hijacker that's willing to die anyway - and that hasn't been uncommon in the past.
Furthermore, it's easily countered. Just start shooting people untill they drop the oxygen masks. Or have someone fake an illness that requires him or her to wear an oxygen mask and carry an oxygen tank.
-- Abigail
Re:There's another option... (Score:2)
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
There's another option... (Score:4)
The question I have is do they get a Cinematic 3D view, or just a foggy outline. Do they get to laugh at this big splotchy birthmark on my butt, or just the big wart on my left toe?
Re:Well....I think the opposite (Score:2)
Go only to female doctors?
Re:There's another option... (Score:2)
Re:People against this are nuts! (Score:2)
The issue, from my point of view, is that a bunch of people have decided they can make me submit to any kind of search they want, any time they want, and justify to them anything I may be carrying, for reasons which are more or less totally bogus.
These scanners are nothing fundamentally new, but they extend the already-evil airport search regime.
Re:Bad things (Score:4)
Two problems:
It doesn't work. Airport security, including this system, exists primarily to make people feel safe. It has limited effect in actually making them be safe. Even if these systems couldn't usually be evaded even in the airports (and they can), all they would do is to cause people to do their evil deeds in the hundreds of other places that have equivalent crowds and less security... many of which places aren't securable in any reasonable way, so you can't just "fix the problem" by adding more security there.
It's obnoxious and not worth it, even if it did work. I come from a pretty radical place on this... as far as I'm concerned, all customs searches are unacceptable, as are all routine airport searches. Think about it... if they can search you at the airport, why shouldn't they be able to search you as you're walking down the street? What is the real difference?
Do It To Julia! (Score:2)
Newspeak-to-English Translation: When the government initiates a crackdown intended to target those people, it's good; when the government initiates a crackdown intended to target my people, it's bad.
/.
Re:The true cost of terrorism (Score:2)
Absolutely.
To prove it, simply ask the question: If the armed forces of Scanneria were to invade the United States with the agenda of replacing the current government with an otherwise identical regime in which there were no Fourth Amendment, and one hundred (to pick a number considerably larger than the average annual death toll from airline terrorism) American soldiers died repelling the invasion, should these soldiers be regarded as fallen heroes or as suckers whose lives were thrown away for no good reason?
/.
Re:Health concerns? (Score:2)
I'd give a respectful hearing to the answer of an official who sat under such a scanner for 24 hours while it ran at full power.
/.
Re:A little bit of freedom or a lot of safety (Score:2)
The government wants its (allegedly) protective measures to advance as fast as possible while freezing our personal protective measures (e.g. crypto regs, to use an example familiar to most /.ers). If permitted to do so, the government would create a situation in which technological advance functioned as a one-way ratchet, expanding its own power with no countervailing offsets favoring the individual.
/.
Re:What about kids? (Score:2)
Here we see one of the standard problems with faith in government power -- its workings are always presented on the assumption that it will be wielded in a just and responsible manner. Skepticism toward this assumption is never addressed by sound argument (perhaps because no such argument has ever survived collision with historical fact), but by caricature of the skeptic's position (as in the opening paragraphs of KahunaBurger's post).
/.
Re:wag the dog (Score:2)
Because it has proven to be a generally ineffective strategy. That's the only factor that has ever abolished a bad idea in the long run.
/.
Re:Security makes me feel free. (Score:2)
Yes, and if we lived in a world where government agents were generally watched for abuses and punished severely (much more severely than a private citizen committing a similar offense, in recognition of their higher level of responsibility) when they perpetrated them, there would be a case to be made.
In summary, get back to me when Lon Horiuchi is making big boulders into little pebbles.
/.
Hmm (Score:2)
And as for the comment the libertarian mentioned about people not having to use a service...well I'm pretty libertarian and would agree with you, except that there are some things that are so ubiquitous and important that it becomes the government responsibility to overlook. Transportation is one of those things. If everybody in the us "decides" individually not to use airplanes, although it may be logical, there will be serious ramifications.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
Re:The true cost of terrorism (Score:2)
We focus upon the immediate damage that terrorists do -- people killed, families shattered, buildings and airplanes destroyed. While these actions are horrible, the damage we then do to our free society as a result is greater. A terrorist, by harming a few hundred people, can cause a country of millions to willingly allow erosion of its liberties.
The "war on drugs" has had a similar effect upon us. A urine test is now de rigueur for most of corporate America. In the absense of the perceived threat, who would submit to such an invasion of privacy? As with airport security, we cause this injury to our free society willingly, because we, as a society, think that the disease is worse than the cure.
Just because we think that these measures are necessary does not mean that they are benign.
The true cost of terrorism (Score:4)
Re:Health concerns? (Score:2)
Airports are historically very hot sites for bombings, so I don't have any privacy concerns in that regard. My main objection to any privacy invasion is that these very same airports have access points to planes that criminals can use to bypass these scanners. If airports are going to install scanners, then EVERYONE (employees, pilots, flight attendents, etc. included) should be able to access the planes ONLY through the same entry points as everyone else. Having back doors to entry negates the entire benefit of having the scanners to begin with. Only the stupid criminals would get caught by the scanners. If we must be subjected to these things, then we should at least have the right to demand that passing through these scanners is the only way for anyone to gain access to the planes.
Did anyone read the article? (Score:2)
I just traveled California - Sweden and back, and went through plenty metal detectors everywhere. I have a belt buckle that always triggers the alarm...
I must say the american detector staff are much more rude and incompetent that the europeans. The Europeans don't boss you around and treat you like a criminal.
There. That feels better. I'm sure the
Re:Naked or not? You be the judge. (Score:2)
That's not underwear in the picture. You're just seeing the skin being relocated by the underwear. So this picture would be revealing regardless of what underclothes someone is wearing.
--
Re:Simplicity Generates Ubiquity, and a Solution (Score:2)
Re:uncool (Score:2)
That's not an anti-gay thing, that's just "person who could be attracted to you looking at you naked" is embarassing
Re:Long time now ... (Score:2)
Take a modern 80% plastic weapon with a metal barrel and put the barrel in your carry-on. You tell me if they recognise it (especially with the sights removed -- you won't need them much in a hijacking; you don't want to actually have to shoot).
Re:Why do we need a screen? (Score:2)
Re:hehe, open source? (Score:2)
Re: Self follow-up (Score:2)
2) Here is more information [ecis.com] about FUD about purely plastic weapons
3) I had both of these in mind when I wrote my response -- my main point was the proposal that (hardware/etc.) hackers start thinking about drafting better proposals for airlines.
Re:Long time now ... (Score:3)
What we need to realise (as the army often does when evaluating war) is that there _will_ be casualties. After realising that, we decide where the minimal point is; do we need to add full display body scanners? Well, do they prevent said determined persons? No. Will they prevent drug smugglers? Maybe. Are there other ways to prevent drug smuggling? Yes. Do we need the scanners? No. (Hypothetically speaking).
What we also need is more universal use of known terrorist face shots being forced on customs / security officials for recognition. Its not like the CIA [cia.gov]/CSIS [csis-scrs.gc.ca]/FBI [fbi.gov]/etc. doesn't have a good list of desciptions with photos. Sure, its not complete, but this would help a lot.
Long time now ... (Score:5)
What really bothers me is that there are now concealed weapons that can't be found with metal detectors (non-metalic guns and knives, for instance). What 'hackers' need to do is work out a way to properly secure airplanes the way they've been giving information on how to secure networks. Unlike network administrators, I think the average airport is actually concerned about security and would take suggestions if we put some good ones together.
We can't always just say "this is a breach of my privacy" when the other side is saying "it's that or getting hijacked!" We won't get any public support that way.
Lets throw around some real ideas on how to detect contraband, etc. without (excessively) invading peoples' privacy.
Note: I say 'excessively' because if you have a rod in your back and didn't want anyone to know, they'll find out if they're in line with you at the airport. This is pretty unavoidable. However, having to be "naked-ish" for the security guard isn't great.
Idea: if we used the same technology with an AI system that recognised non-human items and displayed those areas on the security screen? Open source of course
Re:Long time now ... (Score:2)
uncool (Score:2)
But wait, if I'm unhappy with the idea of some dude checking out the outline of my unit on the scanner, I can opt to be felt up by him instead. Yeah, lovely choice...
numb
Re:uncool (Score:2)
numb
Re:uncool (Score:3)
Learn to be tolerant.
Even in the rare chance that the operator is gay, big deal. So what? You think he/she's going to strip you naked and rape you on the spot?
I hope this is not directed at me because I never mentioned sexual preference other than implying my own. It's not even relevant to me. It's not a matter of gay/straight/bi or interested/not interested.
Get a farking grip here. If this person's job is to look at x-ray-like pictures all day, they're not going to get turned on by you in the least.
Believe me, I don't spend my time worrying about who might or might not be turned on by me unless it's someone I'm interested in. What I care about is not being visually inspected beneath my clothing or touched without my consent.
We need people like you to get over your homophobic reactions and not keep spreading them. It just promotes intolerance and bigotry.
Take out the words "like you" and you have a point--just not one that has any relevance to my original post.
numb
Re:Side effects (Score:2)
(sorry, not my line. Larry Niven, Oath of Fealty
You think YOU have problems with this (Score:2)
I feel more sorry for the people who have to watch these screens. I mean, do YOU want to be watching the screen when some fat greasy people walk through?
Maybe this will be more incentive for the overly obese and fat to slim down a little.
A little bit of freedom or a lot of safety (Score:2)
I value personally freedom as much as most people, but just like everything else in the world, this is a compromise. You need to give up a small amount of freedom so everyone can be safe. Not every device can be objected to because sometime down the line it could misused. In that case we should object to computers, because they could be used to gather information about us, used in devices such as these, and used to hack into OUR computers. There are battles that need to be fought. If something like this ever starts to becomes commonplace in society, then yes we should fight because it is being misused. If you can't walk down the street without a device like this being used one you, yes we should fight, because it's being misused. As long as the device is being used properly (as in to keep everyone safe, and to catch people breaking the law {whether you like the laws or not, it is the job of the police to catch people breaking them, until the law is changed}) then there is no reason to protest this.
Our protective measures need to advance as the rest of technology advances. There are guns being designed that are completely ceramic (yes, I realize the plastic Glock is a myth, and these aren't new guns available yet). If we don't advance out security as fast as the technology, it will become useless. One of the things we give up to live in a civilized society is some personal freedom.
Re:body scanning--take the good with the bad (Score:2)
US Airport Security Sucks (Score:2)
The other (universal) problem is the basic baggage scanner. A friend of mine work for a company that makes them. They were trying to create software that replaces the operator because test show that the current system allows approximately 50% of the 'test' packages to pass undetected. The error rate of these operator/inspectors is truly alarming.
Re:Good vs Bad (Score:4)
First you have to be suspected of being a bad guy. Then you get asked to step into the little room. Then you get a choice of scan or frisk. I would guess that those who are still under suspicion after a frisk or scan will then be subject to a good old-fashioned strip search as well, and as much as I've travelled, I have NEVER seen a strip search in the public concourse areas.
The article also explicitly states no images will be recorded or saved. Do you imagine that these machines will all be hooked up with T3's so they can instantly transmit the images to Usenet?
I'd kinda prefer that the plane I get on arrive at the advertised destination without any bullet holes screwing up the pressurization. Seems like a reasonable device to me.
The doctor sees me naked... (Score:4)
Honestly, I'm a member of the ACLU, and so I'm not unconcerned about civil liberties such as the right to privacy. But when issues like this arise, it always seems that an ACLU rep or Jon Katz or someone else is always ready to stand up and say 'Damn you! How dare you offer us a different option than we had before! How dare you offer us a new choice that may not be to everyone's liking! We demand Utopia, dammit! It's not enough just to offer us a possible improvement, and even give us the choice of whether or not to use it; it's perfection or nothing!' I'm a realist; I compare the proposed new system to what we have now. But every time an issue like this comes up, it seems to be an issue because it gets compared to the perfect world we all wish we lived in, and comes up short against that unrealistic standard.
I've read the comments suggesting that the libertarian thing to do is to boycott all airlines that are now offering this new technology as an alternative to the frisk. It makes me wonder why it wasn't the libertarian thing to do to boycott all those airlines that were frisking in the first place. And it makes me wonder whether libertarians actually get on planes feeling much better knowing that no one on the plane has been searched for guns or bombs.
My only real problem with the system as it's described is that they automatically assign someone of the same sex to be the one looking at the contours of your naked body. I think we should have the choice of having someone of the opposite sex scoping us out. Hell, if I get on the plane suspecting that the woman at the monitor got a cheap thrill out of seeing me naked, I probably won't have stopped smiling before we touch down again. ^_^
Re:Not mandatory (Score:2)
Meant as a solution to abuse. (Score:2)
Not mandatory (Score:2)
signature smigmature
Pictures! (Score:4)
signature smigmature
In case anyone's interested... (Score:2)
Found a picture of it. (Score:4)
I remember reading about something similar, I believe it was gigahertz imaging, four years ago in Science News.