5 ms·

Rather than get rid of the body scanners, i think they'll simply just require you to stand sideways as well, or add a scanner on the side of the machine.

waqf 15y ago
Or have the background colour of the display changed, by contracting with the original suppliers for a few million more taxpayer dollars.
- shingen 15y ago
  Don't be ridiculous. Billion is the new million.
  - tibbon 15y ago
    Clearly, this will require a well paid committee and 5,000 page investigation.
- ars 15y ago
  It's not a color like in a webpage. It's a measure of how many x-rays were received by the scanner, and presumably the background and the object both look the same. Making the person stand sideways would sort of work, but it wouldn't be hard to shift the flaps of an open jacket while turning.
- huhtenberg 15y ago
  > have the background colour of the display changed Have you thought this one through?
RKearney 15y ago
Then you could hide something in the arches of your feet or under a wig.
- kami8845 15y ago
  Then they'll just extend all US scanned to 2.2m meters width and enforce scanning people lying down in both directions.
raquo 15y ago
That would be a reasonable and most probable bureaucratic response to this issue (apart from the option to simply ignore it), but it would double the radiation received and increase inconvenience. Ironically, the opposite of what the guy is fighting for.
prawn 15y ago
Why have people stand sideways when you could sell twice the number of machines to scan people from two aspects!
tsaoutourpants 15y ago
Creator of the video here. The other posters are correct that it's not simply a color change, it's that the backscatter effect reflects similarly from the object as it does from the wall of the device. There are no quick fixes: standing sideways might work, but now screening time doubles (which is actually a big deal to the TSA), the radiation dose doubles, and the machine's software isn't designed for that. There are different scanner manufacturers that have made machines that address this problem, but do so with 5 scans -- 5 times the radiation. Plus, there are other faults to the nude body scanners, and this is just the one I chose to publish. The scanners need to go.
- TamDenholm 15y ago
  Oh i totally agree, the scanners are an absolute disgrace, i'm just very cynical and anything short of an absolute disaster caused specifically by the scanners or the TSA isnt going to get them removed. Governments are reactive to real world catastrophies and not a lot else, and thats why the TSA is there in the first place, its going to take something of equal measure in the opposite vein to remove them.
- seanp2k2 15y ago
  Also, if you're NOT opting out of every scan, you're not helping the cause. You NEED to opt out of every single scan every chance you get, otherwise they'll eliminate the option and say "well, people seem to be OK with this since no one is opting out!" Opted out at SFO and DTW and each time it was no big deal.
  - ryanwhitney 15y ago
    When you opt out you're required to get a pat down though, correct? src: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/opting-out-of-advanced-imaging.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/opting-out-of-advanced-imaging.h...
    - toomuchtodo 15y ago
      Correct.
reledi 15y ago
A pat down just on the sides as soon as you come out of the scan would also work.

waqf 15y ago

Or have the background colour of the display changed, by contracting with the original suppliers for a few million more taxpayer dollars.

shingen 15y ago
Don't be ridiculous. Billion is the new million.
- tibbon 15y ago
  Clearly, this will require a well paid committee and 5,000 page investigation.
ars 15y ago
It's not a color like in a webpage. It's a measure of how many x-rays were received by the scanner, and presumably the background and the object both look the same. Making the person stand sideways would sort of work, but it wouldn't be hard to shift the flaps of an open jacket while turning.
huhtenberg 15y ago
> have the background colour of the display changed Have you thought this one through?

RKearney 15y ago

Then you could hide something in the arches of your feet or under a wig.

kami8845 15y ago
Then they'll just extend all US scanned to 2.2m meters width and enforce scanning people lying down in both directions.

raquo 15y ago

That would be a reasonable and most probable bureaucratic response to this issue (apart from the option to simply ignore it), but it would double the radiation received and increase inconvenience. Ironically, the opposite of what the guy is fighting for.

prawn 15y ago

Why have people stand sideways when you could sell twice the number of machines to scan people from two aspects!

tsaoutourpants 15y ago

Creator of the video here. The other posters are correct that it's not simply a color change, it's that the backscatter effect reflects similarly from the object as it does from the wall of the device. There are no quick fixes: standing sideways might work, but now screening time doubles (which is actually a big deal to the TSA), the radiation dose doubles, and the machine's software isn't designed for that. There are different scanner manufacturers that have made machines that address this problem, but do so with 5 scans -- 5 times the radiation. Plus, there are other faults to the nude body scanners, and this is just the one I chose to publish. The scanners need to go.

TamDenholm 15y ago
Oh i totally agree, the scanners are an absolute disgrace, i'm just very cynical and anything short of an absolute disaster caused specifically by the scanners or the TSA isnt going to get them removed. Governments are reactive to real world catastrophies and not a lot else, and thats why the TSA is there in the first place, its going to take something of equal measure in the opposite vein to remove them.
seanp2k2 15y ago
Also, if you're NOT opting out of every scan, you're not helping the cause. You NEED to opt out of every single scan every chance you get, otherwise they'll eliminate the option and say "well, people seem to be OK with this since no one is opting out!" Opted out at SFO and DTW and each time it was no big deal.
- ryanwhitney 15y ago
  When you opt out you're required to get a pat down though, correct? src: http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/opting-out-of-advanced-imaging.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/opting-out-of-advanced-imaging.h...
  - toomuchtodo 15y ago
    Correct.

reledi 15y ago

A pat down just on the sides as soon as you come out of the scan would also work.