11 ms·

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

145 points by Rod 16y ago

gojomo 16y ago
If there any substance -- for example, a deodorant or lotion with a specific ingredient -- which would allow drawing a picture or words on your body for the scan-reviewers to see?
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  I'd bet anything with metal would do the trick. So actually, maybe deodorant, as it contains aluminum.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  I believe I read somewhere that research into tHz-blocking clothing was done along with the development of these devices. However, I doubt we'll soon see a booming market for metalized underpants in the duty-free zone. I too have thought about sending a harmless message through the scanner, but came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be worth the inevitable harassment.
tptacek 16y ago
I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening", which is not a big deal. It'll add 5 minutes to the security line for you. To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no. By and large, the human beings manning the security checkpoints are as squeamish about invading the personal space of another actual human being looking them in the eyes as you are about having your space invaded. The same is not true of a series of images on a screen in an isolated room. Images on screens are not people. There is no social conditioning that normal human beings have that will cause people to automatically respect images on a screen. Step 1 in defending your rights from ludicrous invasions like this: be an actual person, not an abstraction.
- 5teev 16y ago
  Object while you can, before it's mandatory to surrender all civil rights in order to fly.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety. Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that it's part of some malignant scheme --- is counterproductive. It marginalizes everyone with a more reasonable or nuanced perspective about this issue. Take off the "Buck Fush" t-shirt and be civil to the TSA guy. Say "I'm going to opt out of the body scanner". If enough people do, it'll get easier for everyone to avoid the electronic strip search machine.
    - 5teev 16y ago
      Eliminating civil rights isn't the goal; like much of the evil in the world, it will be a side-effect of people who thought they were doing the right thing.
    - bitwize 16y ago
      > (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) Not in the US, anyway. Thankfully, there's Europe, which has progressed considerably further than the U.S. in terms of actually protecting people's rights.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        Having had the experience of observing the frontiers of my civil rights while being searched on the train from Zurich to Rome, I find this notion that things are better in Europe amusing. From what I can tell, the situation Americans find themselves in at the TSA checkpoints is identical to the situation all Europeans find themselves in everywhere. You realize that (contrary to popular opinion) Americans don't even need to carry ID, right?
openfly 16y ago
I sincerely hope that the president sees fit to put the full might of the US military to the task of ending the tyranny of these TSA terrorists.
watmough 16y ago
Great quote in this article: "For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: "The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events." Of course, the weasel words, "to the maximum extent possible" render this a mere sentiment, at fucking best (as Zed might say), meaning of course that your "privacy, modesty and personal autonomy" are toast.
- flipbrad 16y ago
  This will sound shockingly heartless and coldly rational, but is the bigger problem with that statement not the idea that a few hundred, or even thousand people dying in a plane-related disaster (when magnitudes more will die of, say, bad diet, alcohol related deaths, or bad foreign policy?) is 'catastrophic'? A catastrophe is, for example, the former, or spanish influenza. Does what I presume is the historically minute mortality (related to true catastrophes) associated with air travel, worth the cumulative inconvenience to millions, daily, of stupid, irrational rules (like no liquids in containers greater than 100ml, or no exposed sharp metals even though you could probably just take apart the hairdryer or pc cooler that you WERE allowed to take on, and have exactly the same thing)? Unless realistic assessment of problems is undertaken, is there any foreseeable end to the severity of security measures that will be asked of us? Inflation is inevitable if we allow them to print FUD without checks or ties to the fundamentals.
tlrobinson 16y ago
The title of this submission is false, why did you change it? A federal courthouse in Florida admits to storing the images, not TSA. TSA only admits the machines have the capability to store images, which they say are only used for training/testing purposes.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
jonhohle 16y ago
I am not a constitutional scholar, but this seems like a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I would likely put random bag searches, and pat-down searches in that category as well. As an American citizen, without reasonable suspicion of criminal intent, why are searches of this type legal? Has this been challenged in the Supreme Court?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- fuzzmeister 16y ago
  While there should certainly be a limit on the extent of searches at airports, the reason these searches have not been found "unreasonable" is likely that you can refuse to be searched. Sure, it means you're going to have to drive to wherever you're going, but you still have the option to refuse. If, on the other hand, the police pulled you over and forced you to submit to some sort of full-body scan without reasonable suspicion, that would certainly be ruled in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- tptacek 16y ago
  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.” United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 945, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616. The unanimous opinion of the 9th (en banc); extremely unlikely to be overturned. Net-net: you concede the reasonableness of TSA searches by opting to get on a commercial airliner, where your personal safety impacts the safety of hundreds of other people. There are plenty of other ways to effect interstate travel without entering into the same risk equation; they're just less convenient.
  - inferno0069 16y ago
runjake 16y ago
Every time the TSA rambles on about how giving up this little bit of freedom saves your life from terrorism, I wonder why a journalist doesn't hit them up for comment on the (perhaps apocryphal) quote "Those who would give up their liberty for security deserve neither".
- PotatoEngineer 16y ago
  I've always found that Franklin quote to be a little misleading. The mere act of being a member of a tribe, much less a nation, involves giving up some liberty for security: you're no longer allowed to punch your neighbors in the face for no reason, but now you have some extra spears on your side when some fellow from the next tribe over tries to steal your horse. (Or rather, if you punch a neighbor, you have to deal with whatever consequences the tribe tries to apply to you.) Join a tribe: can't stab your neighbors anymore. Join a nation: not allowed to bomb buildings 500 miles from your home anymore. I'm all in favor of finding the right balance between liberty and security (usually more towards the liberty side), but the idea that you can get security without giving up liberty just doesn't work.
- evgen 16y ago
  Perhaps you should learn the quote first: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Now you just need to prove that the liberties being abrogated are essential and that the security being provided is temporary.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    And since the liberty (privacy) that's being abrogated here isn't even mentioned in the Constitution --- and reasonable, experienced Constitutional Law scholars can argue that we aren't guaranteed it --- that's a tough row to hoe.
    - jambo 16y ago
      If it "isn't even mentioned in the Constitution," (and it's not), then it's protected. The U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers of the U.S. Government. A right does not have to be mentioned in the constitution to be a constitutionally protected right by virtue of a lack of authorization for the government to take it away.
agentultra 16y ago
they can justify any security measure imaginable. i wonder if there's a defense to this intrusion and if it would constitute a crime to bear one. this is where things start to get a little scary.
zenlinux 16y ago
EPIC is a reputable organization, and have filed a federal lawsuit to help stop this practice. I just sent them a donation, and encourage others to do the same.
vl 16y ago
All hope for is that they will design a scanner that scans me and my backpack instantly as I walk through it so I can arrive at the airport 20 minutes before the flight and not to wait in line to take out my laptop and remove my shoes. I can even pay $10 every time I go though such device to get to my plane faster. And as for some overpaid TSA agent seeing me "naked"? You know, I really don't care.
pi314 16y ago
In the brave new USA, you can tell they are lying when their lips are moving. They can make claims like this, that the machines' scans cannot be stored, with no basis in fact whatsoever and suffering no real consequences for the lying. I wish this were the only recent example of this sort of pathological lying by the government's corporate mercenaries.

145 points by Rod 16y ago

If there any substance -- for example, a deodorant or lotion with a specific ingredient -- which would allow drawing a picture or words on your body for the scan-reviewers to see?

sliverstorm 16y ago
I'd bet anything with metal would do the trick. So actually, maybe deodorant, as it contains aluminum.
nitrogen 16y ago
I believe I read somewhere that research into tHz-blocking clothing was done along with the development of these devices. However, I doubt we'll soon see a booming market for metalized underpants in the duty-free zone. I too have thought about sending a harmless message through the scanner, but came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be worth the inevitable harassment.

tptacek 16y ago

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening", which is not a big deal. It'll add 5 minutes to the security line for you. To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no. By and large, the human beings manning the security checkpoints are as squeamish about invading the personal space of another actual human being looking them in the eyes as you are about having your space invaded. The same is not true of a series of images on a screen in an isolated room. Images on screens are not people. There is no social conditioning that normal human beings have that will cause people to automatically respect images on a screen. Step 1 in defending your rights from ludicrous invasions like this: be an actual person, not an abstraction.

5teev 16y ago
Object while you can, before it's mandatory to surrender all civil rights in order to fly.
- tptacek 16y ago
  These millimeter wave devices aren't being installed in a secret plot to eliminate everyone's civil rights. They're being installed because regulators sincerely believe that they represent a reasonable compromise between privacy (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) and safety. Airport security is probably a bad joke. But acting and talking as if that's a foregone conclusion --- or worse, that it's part of some malignant scheme --- is counterproductive. It marginalizes everyone with a more reasonable or nuanced perspective about this issue. Take off the "Buck Fush" t-shirt and be civil to the TSA guy. Say "I'm going to opt out of the body scanner". If enough people do, it'll get easier for everyone to avoid the electronic strip search machine.
  - 5teev 16y ago
    Eliminating civil rights isn't the goal; like much of the evil in the world, it will be a side-effect of people who thought they were doing the right thing.
  - bitwize 16y ago
    > (which is actually not one of your ironclad civil liberties) Not in the US, anyway. Thankfully, there's Europe, which has progressed considerably further than the U.S. in terms of actually protecting people's rights.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Having had the experience of observing the frontiers of my civil rights while being searched on the train from Zurich to Rome, I find this notion that things are better in Europe amusing. From what I can tell, the situation Americans find themselves in at the TSA checkpoints is identical to the situation all Europeans find themselves in everywhere. You realize that (contrary to popular opinion) Americans don't even need to carry ID, right?

openfly 16y ago

I sincerely hope that the president sees fit to put the full might of the US military to the task of ending the tyranny of these TSA terrorists.

watmough 16y ago

Great quote in this article: "For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: "The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events." Of course, the weasel words, "to the maximum extent possible" render this a mere sentiment, at fucking best (as Zed might say), meaning of course that your "privacy, modesty and personal autonomy" are toast.

flipbrad 16y ago
This will sound shockingly heartless and coldly rational, but is the bigger problem with that statement not the idea that a few hundred, or even thousand people dying in a plane-related disaster (when magnitudes more will die of, say, bad diet, alcohol related deaths, or bad foreign policy?) is 'catastrophic'? A catastrophe is, for example, the former, or spanish influenza. Does what I presume is the historically minute mortality (related to true catastrophes) associated with air travel, worth the cumulative inconvenience to millions, daily, of stupid, irrational rules (like no liquids in containers greater than 100ml, or no exposed sharp metals even though you could probably just take apart the hairdryer or pc cooler that you WERE allowed to take on, and have exactly the same thing)? Unless realistic assessment of problems is undertaken, is there any foreseeable end to the severity of security measures that will be asked of us? Inflation is inevitable if we allow them to print FUD without checks or ties to the fundamentals.

tlrobinson 16y ago

The title of this submission is false, why did you change it? A federal courthouse in Florida admits to storing the images, not TSA. TSA only admits the machines have the capability to store images, which they say are only used for training/testing purposes.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

jonhohle 16y ago

I am not a constitutional scholar, but this seems like a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I would likely put random bag searches, and pat-down searches in that category as well. As an American citizen, without reasonable suspicion of criminal intent, why are searches of this type legal? Has this been challenged in the Supreme Court?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
fuzzmeister 16y ago
While there should certainly be a limit on the extent of searches at airports, the reason these searches have not been found "unreasonable" is likely that you can refuse to be searched. Sure, it means you're going to have to drive to wherever you're going, but you still have the option to refuse. If, on the other hand, the police pulled you over and forced you to submit to some sort of full-body scan without reasonable suspicion, that would certainly be ruled in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
tptacek 16y ago
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1265662.html We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.” United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 945, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616. The unanimous opinion of the 9th (en banc); extremely unlikely to be overturned. Net-net: you concede the reasonableness of TSA searches by opting to get on a commercial airliner, where your personal safety impacts the safety of hundreds of other people. There are plenty of other ways to effect interstate travel without entering into the same risk equation; they're just less convenient.
- inferno0069 16y ago

runjake 16y ago

Every time the TSA rambles on about how giving up this little bit of freedom saves your life from terrorism, I wonder why a journalist doesn't hit them up for comment on the (perhaps apocryphal) quote "Those who would give up their liberty for security deserve neither".

PotatoEngineer 16y ago
I've always found that Franklin quote to be a little misleading. The mere act of being a member of a tribe, much less a nation, involves giving up some liberty for security: you're no longer allowed to punch your neighbors in the face for no reason, but now you have some extra spears on your side when some fellow from the next tribe over tries to steal your horse. (Or rather, if you punch a neighbor, you have to deal with whatever consequences the tribe tries to apply to you.) Join a tribe: can't stab your neighbors anymore. Join a nation: not allowed to bomb buildings 500 miles from your home anymore. I'm all in favor of finding the right balance between liberty and security (usually more towards the liberty side), but the idea that you can get security without giving up liberty just doesn't work.
evgen 16y ago
Perhaps you should learn the quote first: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Now you just need to prove that the liberties being abrogated are essential and that the security being provided is temporary.
- tptacek 16y ago
  And since the liberty (privacy) that's being abrogated here isn't even mentioned in the Constitution --- and reasonable, experienced Constitutional Law scholars can argue that we aren't guaranteed it --- that's a tough row to hoe.
  - jambo 16y ago
    If it "isn't even mentioned in the Constitution," (and it's not), then it's protected. The U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers of the U.S. Government. A right does not have to be mentioned in the constitution to be a constitutionally protected right by virtue of a lack of authorization for the government to take it away.

agentultra 16y ago

they can justify any security measure imaginable. i wonder if there's a defense to this intrusion and if it would constitute a crime to bear one. this is where things start to get a little scary.

zenlinux 16y ago

EPIC is a reputable organization, and have filed a federal lawsuit to help stop this practice. I just sent them a donation, and encourage others to do the same.

vl 16y ago

All hope for is that they will design a scanner that scans me and my backpack instantly as I walk through it so I can arrive at the airport 20 minutes before the flight and not to wait in line to take out my laptop and remove my shoes. I can even pay $10 every time I go though such device to get to my plane faster. And as for some overpaid TSA agent seeing me "naked"? You know, I really don't care.

pi314 16y ago

In the brave new USA, you can tell they are lying when their lips are moving. They can make claims like this, that the machines' scans cannot be stored, with no basis in fact whatsoever and suffering no real consequences for the lying. I wish this were the only recent example of this sort of pathological lying by the government's corporate mercenaries.