13 ms·
Naked-Image Scanners to Be Removed From U.S. Airports
- brandonsavage 14y agoThey're still not removing the body scanners entirely though, just the ones that can't display a generic outline. The privacy violations and radiation exposure will continue.
- jws 14y ago…radiation exposure will continue… The L-3 Communications scanners are millimeter wave. They do not share the possible dangers of the backscatter machines.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- hkmurakami 14y agoI don't doubt that health harms are minimal if any, but every time I go through these I get a very weird sensation in my torso which I'm just not fond of, so I've started opting out since December. I personally don't mind the patdown at all, and the TSA personnel have all been professional each time I've requested to opt out. I do wonder what would happen if a significant minority started opting out, since that would most likely clog the system pretty badly.
- cheald 14y agoI've opted out every time I've ever ended up in a scanner line, but the millimeter wave stuff is absolutely significantly more safe than the backscatter, specifically because it doesn't use ionizing radiation. Of course, it's also easily defeated[1][2] by anyone that knows what they're doing, so it's not like it's keeping us particularly safe. [1] http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body-scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas-nude-body-scanners/ http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-... [2] http://americablog.com/2010/01/german-tv-highlights-failings-of-body-scanners.html http://americablog.com/2010/01/german-tv-highlights-failings...
- tsaoutourpants 14y agoThat TSA Out of our Pants guy seems pretty smart!
- blahedo 14y agoFrom TFA: "TSA has contracted with L-3, Smiths Group Plc (SMIN) and American Science & Engineering Inc. (ASEI) for new body-image scanners, all of which must have privacy software. L-3 and Smiths used millimeter-wave technology. American Science uses backscatter."
- Steuard 14y agoOr rather, after reading the article, some naked-image scanners to be removed, and then promptly replaced with others from a different company. No big news here, as far as I can tell.
- jws 14y agoThe replacement scanners are not backscatter radiation units and they display an icon of a person with a little dot that lights up to highlight where the little icon man has an anomaly.
- Zak 14y agoThey may do a better job of protecting travelers' privacy than the backscatter units, but they still strike me as being on the wrong side of the same line.
- JshWright 14y agoAnd for all I know, a highly accurate 3D representation of my body is being stored in a database for future identification. I realize that's bordering on tin-foil hat land, but it's why I opt out every time, and will continue to do so...
- Torgo 14y agohttp://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html They told us they wouldn't store the images on the previous scanners, but it turns out they were.
- pyre 14y agoThe generic government response to criticism of these scanners has been that they aren't stored, but (as far as I know) the only agency that has out-and-out said they aren't storing them is the TSA. In this case (the article), the U.S. Marshals Service was storing the images at a courthouse security checkpoint. 1. Did the U.S. Marshals Service claim that they weren't storing the images prior to this discovery? 2. Do you know of any examples of the TSA storing the images (in opposition to what they have claimed they do)?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- JeremyKolb 14y agoDang it! I was hoping that those machines were actually going away.
- oinksoft 14y agoAs long as they've got guys randomly swabbing old folks' palms to test for bomb-making materials, and all of the other ridiculous trespasses on personal dignity that comprise their much maligned "security theatre," I won't be flying. Amtrak may have a few threatening "see it, say it" signs at the station, but at least they treat me like a customer and not a maniac.
- wting 14y agoSome of us who travel between continents don't have that luxury. TSA already monitors Amtrack: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/opinion/don-phillips-tsa-vipr-teams/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/opinion/don-phillips-tsa-vipr-... Due to the broad description of the organization's purpose, it gives them overreaching powers allowing them to secure any mode of transportation. This has led to the TSA expanding its presence and showing up at NFL games: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-elliott/the-tsa-wants-to-be-every_b_2393332.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-elliott/the-tsa-wa... Edit: For those commenting about NFL game presence without reading the linked article... > Few people know that $105 million of their taxpayer dollars are going to fund > 37 VIPR teams in 2012, whose purpose is to "augment" the security of any mode > of transportation. They don't realize that these VIPR teams can show up > virtually anytime, anywhere and without warning, subjecting you to a search > of your vehicle or person.
- danilocampos 14y agoI love it. I encourage their presence at NFL games. I hope they give football fans a full body cavity search. Let Joe Sixpack endure their absurdity and maybe we'll actually see progress toward ending the TSA.
- philwelch 14y agoIf you can afford tickets to actually go to an NFL game, you're in the same elite as air travelers if not richer.
- 14y ago
- ddrmaxgt37 14y agoI see that Bloomberg is keeping with their habit of misleading titles and linkbait.
- jostmey 14y agoAbout time!
- ck2 14y agoSuper incomplete headline by bloomberg. ONE kind of naked scanner is being replaced with ANOTHER. And then the existing naked scanner is being kept in service just at different locations like courthouses. Absolutely nothing has changed, extraordinary amounts of taxpayer money still changing hands.
- jelled 14y agoAs someone who used to travel extensively for work, I've been through these things dozens of times. I consider myself a modest person and wouldn't walk around a locker room without a towel, but I don't see what the big deal is with these scanners. Who cares if someone you don't know who doesn't know your identity can see a blurry outline of your junk? Its like two ships passing in the night. Edit: I will admit trying to avoid them. Not for privacy reasons but because they are sloooow. The line going through the regular x-ray always moves much faster.
- epoxyhockey 14y agoJust a ship passing in the night: http://imgur.com/wQYYi http://imgur.com/wQYYi ( referenced from: http://rupture.co.uk/Terminal%204.html http://rupture.co.uk/Terminal%204.html )
- darkarmani 14y ago> I've been through these things dozens of times... I don't see what the big deal is with these scanners. * They are unnecessary * They are a forced indignity * They are security theater * They should be unconstitutional * They are a huge waste of money Why is it even necessary to ask your question? Do you realize that they feel up your junk if you (doublespeak) "opt-out"? As kids, these are things we thought Soviet Russia did to their people.
- lancewiggs 14y agoAnd for your 12 year old son or daughter? How would you feel about that?
- leoedin 14y agoI completely agree. The pictures these things produce aren't recognisable as more than a vague outline. I think sometimes people forget that they aren't actually that unique. We're all naked under our clothes. Most people aren't special enough that anyone cares about seeing a pixelated naked image of them. The guy in the TSA booth sees thousands of naked people a day. He's not laughing at you, he's just trying to get through his day. It's similar to how going to the doctor with something embarrassing seems like a huge deal for most people, but to the doctor you're just the nth person that week pulling down their trousers.
- greenyoda 14y agoNote that Deepak Chopra, the CEO of OSI Systems (the scanner manufacturer in the article), is not the same person as Deepak Chopra, the alternative medicine doctor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra_(disambiguation)
- natep 14y agoEmbarrassing that Bloomberg doesn't seem to know this.
- phpnode 14y agoplease don't help perpetuate the phrase "alternative medicine", if it was effective, it would just be called "medicine". A better description would be "Deepak Chopra, the charlatan"
- Strshps1MoreTim 14y agoI have no idea who this guy is, but often "alternative medicine" is very effective. In poorer countries it's often performed by smart professionals, who are using experience accumulated over centuries or even millennia - what plants help what conditions, etc.
- mkr-hn 14y agoDo you have anything to back this up? A lot of people believing something doesn't make it true.
- mattstreet 14y agoProfessions who help people just by listening. It has been shown that most of the positive benefit people experience from many of these therapies is just the fact of having someone that cares (or at least appears to) listen to your problems for an hour and provide support.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Rickasaurus 14y agoNaked doesn't bother me, it's the radiation from x-ray based scanners.
- nostrademons 14y agoI thought I'd heard that the radiation dose was on the order of what you'd get from 2 minutes of your airline flight. [1] I was far more worried about the nude photos, and always opted out before the backscatter machines were replaced with millimeter-wave. "Being groped is uncomfortable for 5 minutes; having nude photos floating around some TSA agent's computer is uncomfortable for a lifetime." [1] http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm227201.htm#2 http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt...
- X-Istence 14y agoUntil there is independent 3rd-party verification that indeed the radiation dose is that what I get from flying for 2 minutes, I won't trust the TSA telling me so, or the company that is making billions of the machines. Skin cancer, as well as various other cancers run in my family, I don't want to risk it. Although, coming back from Europe to the US nothing says "Welcome to flying back to the US" than a grope from some security guy at Amsterdam airport that is paid to be there because the US initiated new rules requiring all flights to the US to have RapiScan machines for full-body imaging, or the grope at the first arriving airport with my connecting flight back to the city I live in.
- DennisP 14y ago2 minutes assuming the machine is properly calibrated and doesn't malfunction.
- flyinRyan 14y agoYour source is the same government who's trying to get you to go through these things. The issue is, I don't know, you don't know and the TSA guy sure as hell doesn't know. Those scanners are one of the few places in the world where you can get an xray scan by someone who isn't a certified xray machine operator.
- epoxyhockey 14y agoThis is recycled content from last October. Past discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4674309 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4674309 I will mention that IAD airport in TSA's backyard still have a complete array of Rapiscan scanners, with no sign of being replaced. Each scanner is slightly rotated away from the next. One might postulate that the xray leakage off to the sides of the scanners would have a compounding effect on TSA workers if the scanners were arranged perfectly in line.
- js2 14y agoArticle doesn't say it, but the Rapiscan scanners are x-ray backscatter based, about which there are significant health concerns. The L-3 (ProVision) scanners are millimeter wave based. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner I wonder if the privacy issue is a cover story.
- blahedo 14y agoActually, the article does say it---just above the heading for "Privacy concerns". It also says, near the end, that of the new contracts, two are with companies that use millimeter-wave, and one is with a company that uses backscatter. So the privacy thing probably isn't just a cover story, or at least not for the X-ray issue.
- cpeterso 14y agoIt's sad (but unsurprising) that the machines are being removed for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.
- zaroth 14y agoI'm not sure if you're trolling? The machines are being removed precisely due to concerns over safety and effectiveness. Efficiency is the number one reason they are being removed, as stated by the TSA. The backscatter machines produce an R-rated image of the person being scanned. This requires secondary personnel to view the image in a separate area and then communicate back to the primary personnel at the checkpoint. TSA asked Rapidscan to write software which could render a non-R-rated image which could be displayed and interpreted at the checkpoint, but Rapidscan could not or would not. If you have studied HCI, the simplicity and efficiency of the interface is highly correlated with the ability of the user to complete a designated task. Making the checkpoint more efficient increases TSA personnel's ability to accomplish their objectives. The UI of the ProVision is specifically designed for 'non-experts' -- it shows a simple stick figure and a bright colored box for any area of the body that triggers an alert. What could be easier to interpret? You can even look at your own results as you walk through. Whether or not you're a fan of TSA, whether you believe the increased efficiency is simply a face-saving excuse to get the "naked body scanners" out of there, the TSA's rightfully concluded the ProVision (RF, non-ionizing) scanners are a superior product, and everyone should be happier to get to walk through them rather than the X-ray based machines. Personally I'd be happier not having to queue and walk through any fixed scanner... and they are working on airport designs which will make that a reality.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Vivtek 14y agoGreat! Money well spent, then!
- jayferd 14y agoAm I the only one who reads "Rapiscan" as "Rapey-scan"...?
- ratherbefuddled 14y agoNo, that did seem rather a poor choice of names to me too.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- wvenable 14y agoThe machines served their purpose: they were purchased. Doesn't matter if they get used. It's now time to move onto the next security item that can be purchased for millions of dollars.
- dsl 14y agoFrom the third paragraph: "It will now get rid of the remaining 174 Rapiscan machines, with the company absorbing the cost"
- rasengan0 14y agouh, did I read that right? CEO Deepak Chopra?! The quantum potential of infinite possibilities... "OSI Systems is “pleased to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement with the TSA” that will involve moving the machines to other government agencies, Chief Executive Officer Deepak Chopra said in a statement. "
- Twisol 14y agoQuoting greenyoda from below: > Note that Deepak Chopra, the CEO of OSI Systems (the scanner manufacturer in the article), is not the same person as Deepak Chopra, the alternative medicine doctor. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra_(disambiguation)
- rvkennedy 14y agoAnd yet, they're both selling dubious solutions to problems they've invented. What are the odds?
- SatvikBeri 14y ago"Deepak Chopra" is essentially "John Smith" in India. It's unlikely that they're the same person.
- rasengan0 14y ago
- welder 14y agoMany times I've flown with knives in my carry-on without realizing it until after the flight. Why go through all this security when it doesn't even work? Makes me suspicious it's all for show and to fill some company's pockets.
- betterunix 14y agoYou could walk through the security check without an knives, and sneak a bit of glass out of an airport bar on the other side. Why bother with knives, when you can make a prison shiv using things you can buy just before boarding a plane? The real answers to hijacking are (1) locking the cabin door from the inside and (2) passengers understanding that they are not just going to be flown to Cuba. The security checkpoints are almost entirely useless.
- pavel_lishin 14y agoWhy would I bother sneaking a bit of airport glass when I can just go to a Applechili's, order a steak, and keep the silverware?
- betterunix 14y agoI suppose it depends on your airport; my local one is a tiny regional airport with a bar but not many opportunities to score some silverware. In the end, if your evil plot requires silverware, I suppose you would just go to a larger airport; the nearest international airport is only 2 hours away from here.
- 3amOpsGuy 14y agoAs a non-american, i'm curious (& supportive). When are you going to get together and drop your TSA? Could you band together this year and get rid of it?
- crikli 14y agoIf only we the people had that kind of power. Unfortunately we've submitted ourselves to staggering invasions of our rights to safeguard our illusion of security. The train has left the station and it ain't coming back.
- logn 14y agoWhat I don't get is the 1973 court decision allowing these searches: "In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft [...] [an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.” " (source: http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/ http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-...) So our forefathers obviously intended "reasonable searches" to include strip-searching the entire population of travelers to ensure they are not bearing arms. Riiight. According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Colonial_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_... ), in colonial America the government regularly searched houses and seized property without warrants (general searches) to enforce taxes. There was a legal battle over this, AND --->>> John Adams viewed it as the spark in which originated the American Revolution. Seriously, how in the world can we be so ignorant as to ignore our history and try to enforce constitutional amendments without sensible historical context.
- jstalin 14y agoLawyer here. The administrative search exception to the fourth amendment means that an administrative agency can search to enforce an administrative regulation without a warrant. The most common example of this that everyone would understand is a county health department inspecting a restaurant licensed to sell food to the public. In other words, because a restaurant has submitted to the licensing scheme of a county, it impliedly gives the county the right to search it without a warrant. Consider how a county health department could do its inspections if it had to get a warrant to do so each time it needed to. So, in essence, in the case above, the Supreme Court is saying that since you're submitting to the government's regulations by choosing to fly, they don't need a warrant to search you.
- lucian1900 14y agoIt's called Rapiscan? Really!?
- logorrhea 14y agoA step in the right direction, but they are going to replace them with yet another scanner. I wouldn't mind them not shooting any waves at me at all just so that I can board a plane.
- jstalin 14y agoSimple solution: Opt out of the naked scanners, every time. I've gotten used to the pat downs and they don't bother me at all. I just give myself an extra 10-15 minutes lead time when arriving at the airport.
- stanleydrew 14y agoI do this every time, but it always ends up feeling futile. I'm just waiting for the day when "opting-out" is no longer permitted.
- G5ANDY 14y agoI do this as well. However they don't allow opt-outs in the UK.
- pavel_lishin 14y agoI do the same, but it's still an undignified procedure that ultimately does not seem to make us any safer.
- egb 14y agoDoes anybody have a link to the site that tracks user-submitted reviews of security lines sorted by airport/terminal/airline and tells you which lines are forced through which types of scanners? My google fu has failed me...
- egb 14y agoFound it, for those who are interested - http://tsastatus.net http://tsastatus.net