Body scanners coming to New York & Jersey airports

[Bradbury]

Seeing as how every single time (no hyperbole there - I really mean every single time) I've gone through airport security I've set off the metal detector, I'd actually personally welcome this. It's way less invasive to me than to have a security guard pat me down with the back of their hand in front of all the other passengers every other flight.

But that's me, and I don't really care if some faceless security guy sees my faceless digital model. I still don't have much faith that TSA won't fuck up and ruin any public trust anyone might have towards them with this thing. For me the big question is just figuring out the worst case scenario.

[RedImperator]

Worst case scenario is recognizable pictures of someone on the Internet, obviously.

[Tanasinn]

Worst case scenario is recognizable pictures of someone on the Internet, obviously.

Hell, I'd love that. Sue them for a few million and wait out this recession.


It's funny how no one gives a shit about tight airport security when it's just brown people being fucked with. Suck it down, you hosers.

[fgalkin]

Not to mention that YOU CAN OPT OUT and submit to a patdown and go through a metal detector. So yeah, I don't see the problem here.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Steel]

Worst case scenario is recognizable pictures of someone on the Internet, obviously.

Hell, I'd love that. Sue them for a few million and wait out this recession.

To reiterate, I have been through one of these with a group of people who all knew exactly what everyone else looked like, and we couldn't reliably tell who was who. This was even on one that didn't blur/remove the face.

Even if every single picture from these is posted on the internet nobody is going to be able to associate them with people. Anyone worried about people finding out about their embarrassing distinguishing feature (tiny cock, whatever) is not going to be recognisable unless people already know exactly what you look like, even then it'll be a toss up between 20,000 others that all look identical.

[Kanastrous]

If the TSA idiots can't even keep from getting in fistfights with one another because of them going through the scanner and seeing and making fun of each other's small junk, how could you possibly trust them not to abuse these scanners in other ways?

I don't, particularly. So what? What 'abuse' of the scanner should I worry about? What's the very worst thing that can happen? Maybe a TSA jerk records an anonymous monochrome image of me, seen through my clothes, and has a hacker pal get it displayed up on one of the big Times Square jumbotrons. That's as public a display of the image as I can think of, at the moment - and who cares? I probably wouldn't even recognize the picture myself. Fuck, let him hack into a CNN satellite feed and put the image up during the early broadcast of 'Larry King Live.' Still, why would I give a damn?

Don't even waste anybody's time, if the concern is that some anonymous guy whom I'll never meet finds some inspiration to make nasty coments about my image on his screen. The language doesn't even exist to describe how absolutely trivial a matter that really is.

Seriously, the objections are really nothing more than prudery, body-consciousness, or variations on the theme of ooo the nasty nasty TSA is touching me!* - compared to what a government agency - actually, almost anyone with the time and interest - can dig up on your finances, your associations, your communications, you purchases, your investments, etc the idea of some anonymous low-level functionary seeing an abstract representation of your anonymous junk fades to irrelevance.


* more childish than that, even; the complaint is ooo the nasty nasty TSA is looking at me!

[Tanasinn]

Worst case scenario is recognizable pictures of someone on the Internet, obviously.

Hell, I'd love that. Sue them for a few million and wait out this recession.

To reiterate, I have been through one of these with a group of people who all knew exactly what everyone else looked like, and we couldn't reliably tell who was who. This was even on one that didn't blur/remove the face.

I realize that. My point (which was a joke) is that if somehow magically-recognizable, comprimising scans of a person ended up on the internet, it'd be something to celebrate instead of be angry about due to lawsuit potential.

[Broomstick]

My main objection is I see it as another wasteful addition to airport security that doesn't actually accomplish anything. I mean what's the possibility of some douchebag actually hiding explosives in their ass?

Well, we've had one that hid explosives in his underwear, or, for those who don't like wiki for fast and dirty reference:


So - assbombs haven't happened yet, but I wouldn't say they're impossible.

[General Zod]

My main objection is I see it as another wasteful addition to airport security that doesn't actually accomplish anything. I mean what's the possibility of some douchebag actually hiding explosives in their ass?

Well, we've had one that hid explosives in his underwear, or, for those who don't like wiki for fast and dirty reference:


So - assbombs haven't happened yet, but I wouldn't say they're impossible.

On the other hand . . .

The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.

The claim severely undermines Gordon Brown's focus on hi-tech scanners for airline passengers as part of his review into airport security after the attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.

The Independent on Sunday has also heard authoritative claims that officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation.

Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.

But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.

Tests by scientists in the team at Qinetiq, which Mr Wallace advised before he became an MP in 2005, showed the millimetre-wave scanners picked up shrapnel and heavy wax and metal, but plastic, chemicals and liquids were missed.

If a material is low density, such as powder, liquid or thin plastic – as well as the passenger's clothing – the millimetre waves pass through and the object is not shown on screen. High- density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosive reflect the millimetre waves and leave an image of the object.

Doesn't seem like they would have been so effective against the underwear bomber to me, and there's plenty of exceptions to what it can pick up.

[Broomstick]

Should I also point out that the quantity used by Mr. Underwear was also insufficient to take down an airplane?

I could see a situation where incongruity between what a passenger looks like in clothing vs. without might arouse suspicion that there is a quantity of "stuff" under the clothing that might require further inspection.

I do know that, for damn sure, you aren't going to have the general public submitting to routine body cavity searches to get on an airplane. Although, if we had that as the rule for a week I'd expect people would become a lot happier with body scanners....

[General Zod]

Should I also point out that the quantity used by Mr. Underwear was also insufficient to take down an airplane?

I could see a situation where incongruity between what a passenger looks like in clothing vs. without might arouse suspicion that there is a quantity of "stuff" under the clothing that might require further inspection.

I do know that, for damn sure, you aren't going to have the general public submitting to routine body cavity searches to get on an airplane. Although, if we had that as the rule for a week I'd expect people would become a lot happier with body scanners....

Except the underwear-bomber is precisely what prompted people to want the body scanners put in in the first place . . .of course it's not like this is the first time authorities have proposed an ineffective solution for a given security problem.

[dragon]

having been through one myself I can honestly say to people complaining grow up it's complaining about stujff like this that makes me ashamed of my fellow americans. And if this bothers you make sure you stay home and don't ever go to europe.

[Broomstick]

Should I also point out that the quantity used by Mr. Underwear was also insufficient to take down an airplane?

I could see a situation where incongruity between what a passenger looks like in clothing vs. without might arouse suspicion that there is a quantity of "stuff" under the clothing that might require further inspection.

I do know that, for damn sure, you aren't going to have the general public submitting to routine body cavity searches to get on an airplane. Although, if we had that as the rule for a week I'd expect people would become a lot happier with body scanners....

Except the underwear-bomber is precisely what prompted people to want the body scanners put in in the first place . . .of course it's not like this is the first time authorities have proposed an ineffective solution for a given security problem.

Untrue. The scanners were developed and some even deployed prior to Mr. Underwear. That incident is NOT what prompted the call for scanners in the first place.

It did, of course, provide some impetus and justification for some of those wanting the devices to become universal regardless of cost or true need, but it wasn't where the concept originated.

[Kanastrous]

Zod, the question is not whether the scanners are the perfect +10 Box of True Seeing. No one here is pimping them as the catch-every-last-thing magic bullet; the question is are they an improvement over metal detectors? and the answer appears to be yes. It's not so much about what they can't reliably detect - although those are gaps to be closed - it's about how much better a balance of security and transit time the scanners can offer over the procedures mostly in place right now.

If I were in the security-box business I'd be at least looking at a machine that fuses soft x-ray, ultrasound, magnetometer and chemical sniffer sensors into a one-stop scan with presumably a better chance of catching most any plausibly threatening contraband. Maybe that's even where they're headed. But for now the body scanners represent an advance, which makes them worthwhile even if the advance is not all the way to perfection.

I suspect that the machines may also contribute a new psychological dimension to the screening process. If it has deterrent potential that's worth exploiting too.

[eviljedi73]

The technology already exists, and is in somewhat limited use in the U.S. Every day when I go to work at any nuclear plant in the country I have to go through security that takes less than two minutes. There is an X-ray machine, a bomb sniffer and a metal detector. Why create new gizmos to do what already works?

[Molyneux]

Yet another reason to despise commercial airlines, whoopee.
It may be a useful tool, but I just can't wait to see what improper use it's put to. I'd lay good money on the first report of impropriety coming no more than three months after initial widespread installation.

[Kanastrous]

Depending upon your use of improper it's already happened. So what? Who cares? No one has yet offered any suggestions as to what improper use the machines can be put to, that's actually worth worrying about.

Molyneux, probably the most important thing you can do to hammer your disapproval home to the airlines (assuming they're even the proper target for said disapproval), is to quit flying, permanently. I'll think of you every time I transit a slightly-less-crowded airport.

[Molyneux]

Depending upon your use of improper it's already happened. So what? Who cares? No one has yet offered any suggestions as to what improper use the machines can be put to, that's actually worth worrying about.

Molyneux, probably the most important thing you can do to hammer your disapproval home to the airlines (assuming they're even the proper target for said disapproval), is to quit flying, permanently. I'll think of you every time I transit a slightly-less-crowded airport.

I already avoid it whenever I can, thanks. I prefer a mode of travel where they don't treat you like a criminal.
Interesting thing, by the way - I recently flew to and from Israel. American security procedures are much more intrusive than Israeli procedures. Why, we didn't even have to take our shoes off once to get on the flight home! Those poor, naive Israeli security officials.

[Kanastrous]

My understanding is that Israeli security philosophy is pinned more to profiling that determines who gets the scrutiny, and who doesn't - if they dismiss you as a threat, you hardly see security at all; if you raise red flags you get the third degree. I guess when you have a smaller flow of passengers to screen it's a little bit easier to be particular.

Having once been treated to the whole apprehension->arrest->photographing->fingerprinting->interviewed-while-chained-to-a-desk experience that you get when actually being 'treated like a criminal' (rather than just bitching about something that I suspect you have never really experienced, or you'd know better) - transiting airport security is not even remotely like it. C'mon, there's a conversation to be had without resorting to worthless rhetorical garbage like that.

[Molyneux]

My understanding is that Israeli security philosophy is pinned more to profiling that determines who gets the scrutiny, and who doesn't - if they dismiss you as a threat, you hardly see security at all; if you raise red flags you get the third degree. I guess when you have a smaller flow of passengers to screen it's a little bit easier to be particular.

Having once been treated to the whole apprehension->arrest->photographing->fingerprinting->interviewed-while-chained-to-a-desk experience that you get when actually being 'treated like a criminal' (rather than just bitching about something that I suspect you have never really experienced, or you'd know better) - transiting airport security is not even remotely like it. C'mon, there's a conversation to be had without resorting to worthless rhetorical garbage like that.

You have a point, sorry; I still find the runaround to get on a plane to be enough to make me avoid flying whenever possible, though.

[Simon_Jester]

I won't say airport security treats people like criminals.

What I will say is that I dislike the presumption that I can be searched arbitrarily closely, that there is no upper limit to how tight, labor intensive, and unpleasant a scrutiny the passengers should have to face. That because I want to fly, the burden of proof is on me to establish that I am not a criminal, and that I have no right not to be treated like one if others choose to do so. And, most importantly, that the decision of how closely I can be searched is out of my hands- I don't really have a vote in the operation of the TSA, because there are no politicians to be found in the country willing to restrain it.

I don't like any of that, not least because I don't think there's an obvious limit to how far it can be taken, and there should be a limit. At some point, the aggregate cost of the security, as measured in dollars, lost man-hours, and lost peace of mind becomes greater than the cost of the attacks it prevents. And as we use more and more expensive and intrusive security procedures to deal with smaller and smaller threats, I get the feeling we've already crossed that line without stopping.

Is it really worth installing terahertz scanners in all our airports in the vague hope of catching the next Underwear Bomber? Given that the last one accomplished nothing but setting fire to his own genitals? How many millions of dollars are we going to spend, how many millions of people are we going to leave feeling disturbed and violated, in order to avoid the possibility of a terrorist attack that may never come?

Does the TSA even do cost-benefit analysis? They should; if we're fighting a War on Terrorism we should be thinking about these things, so as to avoid spending enormous amounts of our own assets in ways that do no harm to the enemy.

[Broomstick]

Does the TSA even do cost-benefit analysis?

They do - but keep in mind that, up to a point, the more the costs the more they benefit. They are not unbiased.