6 ms·

Can someone please explain what's wrong with going through the machine? If it means not having my balls squeezed, it sounds pretty good to me.

by highace 13y ago

marshray 13y ago
Because it's a strip search.
- Joeboy 13y ago
  Further to that, once you can no longer travel in your own country without being strip searched it means, as the article puts it, that the terrorists have won. It's a test and a defense of freedom.
  - UweSchmidt 13y ago
    The terrorists don't win if people in America lose rights. Wtf? Terrorists win if they don't turn into terrorists in the first place but live normal happy lives in their countries, maintaining a mild disdain for the decadent west while admiring the nice parts, like freedom and wealth. The radicalization surely has many roots, one of them being real and imagined pressure from the West. I propose looking into that aspect a bit more. I think we (the West) are not intentionally evil towards the arab/muslim world, but that politics happens and power is applied and these people often get the short end of the deal, leading to resentment and strengthening the crazy mullah's teachings.
    - speeder 13y ago
      I am from another place that had problems with US, and I always believed US is intentionally evil, and it don't proved otherwise yet. It behaves like a school bully, that protect its interests by beating other kids until they hand their lunch over, and when someone ask why, he says he was hungry.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      I think you've missed his point. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think it's not a useful response here. On of Osama bin Laden's stated goals was to bankrupt the US. For $1m or so in initial investment, he's gotten us to waste a trillion or so on a pointless Iraq adventure. The TSA has only cost us $100bn or so, not counting the countless hours and energy lost waiting in line and performing pointless rituals. But more broadly, he's a terrorist. As the name suggests, the goal is to create fear. And the TSA is a giant institutionalization of that fear. It's only scared people who give up their rights. The TSA is both a response to fear and a creator of fear, and having scared this guy into compliance, they have done their job.
xpaulbettsx 13y ago
Consider the following: if that identical machine were in a hospital, it would have been required to go through years of clinical trials to ensure its safety over the long term. The machines they are using are medical equipment. However, because it's in an airport, none of this has happened. Maybe it is safe. Maybe it isn't. It is unproven.
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  Is the radiation worse than a long-distance flight?
  - biff 13y ago
    Doesn't help the cause if you're already doing a long-distance flight...
  - ignostic 13y ago
    Passive mm-wave scanners do not produce radiation. The active mm-wave scanners use non-ionizing radiation which has been studied and shown not to cause cancer. One study even suggested it might reduce metastasis: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20208/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20208/abstrac... The flight itself isn't even that bad, but it is worse than the scanners. You get maybe 5 mrem (50 µSv) flying from London to NYC. http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.... The flight radiation is something you'd want to avoid, but a single flight is almost insignificant. XKCD has a reference chart: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/ Flight radiation is mostly a concern for flight crew.
- raverbashing 13y ago
  Enjoy your MRIs costing 4 (or maybe 5) digits Yes, it should be tested for safety, if in one case it looks like a lack of due diligence, in another it looks like an excessive CYA policy with some incentive from tort cases.
- abrichr 13y ago
  I was under the impression that since it uses radio waves, there was no question about its safety (unlike the back scatter machines). Or are we also worried about cell phones?
chris_wot 13y ago
Perhaps I want someone to squeeze my balls? I think the main objection to the millimetre wave scanner is that it's a virtual strip search.
krichman 13y ago
I don't trust them to not save the images, I don't trust them to not get hacked, and I don't want some random black hat to have images of my body over time.
- krichman 13y ago
  PS: Michael Chertoff, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, represents scanner manufacturers. So the whole thing is a massive conflict of interest if you ask me.
- evertonfuller 13y ago
  They are not linked to you or your passport or ID. So there is no 'you' or your 'body' that they can collect over time.
  - raesene2 13y ago
    Assuming it's possible to say that two images are from the same person, it would be trivial to work out specifically who that was with any frequent flyer. You'd just build up a body of images of "person 1" then cross-reference with flight records till you narrow it down to only being one possible person who had been on all those flights...
    - hyperventilator 13y ago
      For what possible fucking reason! This is foolishness or possibly a form of mental illness.
      - icecreampain 13y ago
        Wiretapping and saving everything in the internet, including comms from allies and neutral parties, is foolishness or possibly a form of mental illness.
      - wpietri 13y ago
        I hadn't thought about it before you asked, but this would be a perfect way to build up detailed information for biometric databases. You'd then use that with lower-fidelity sources, like video cameras. You've got head shape, hand shape, height, shoulder width, BMI, and length of every major body segment. From there you can calculate all sorts of ratios to apply to people, and I'd bet you could make a pretty good guess at gait for motion analysis. A database like this would also be proof against facial surgery; changing bone lengths is harder. So if you get a known terrorist once, you should be able to spot them much more easily in the future. And of course you'd keep the records indefinitely, because you never know who's going to turn out to be a terrorist. Or a drug mule. Or a political protester [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO for the historical version; http://nymag.com/news/features/nypd-demographics-unit-2013-9/ http://nymag.com/news/features/nypd-demographics-unit-2013-9... for the modern one.
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
I am suspicious that they are gathering biometric data (exact body dimensions) with the scans. Collating that data with flight manifests and surveillance footage would lead to very accurate automated systems for identifying people from any surveillance footage.
peterwwillis 13y ago
Body scanners are like a big "Fuck You, Citizen" from your government. First, we know they don't work, because they only work up to the epidermis, and sometimes not even that well, as lots of dangerous things have gotten through them. If you wanted to get something on a plane, put it up your butt or somehow else in your body and it will work 100% of the time. Just don't carry a gun strapped to your body. (Though that has worked too) In addition, even when I go through the scanners (because I am a very obedient citizen) I still get a ball-hugging pat-down after going through the scanner, because they weren't sure what they were looking at. When Germany tested the millimeter wave scanners they reported around 50% false positives that required additional pat-downs. Second, invasion of privacy. They're taking pictures of your naked body. And gross people have been caught ogling the pictures. Besides just being creepy, there are people who have been sexually assaulted and this amounts to an additional assault, and can be emotionally damaging. Not even considering how kids and their rights factor in here. Third, we don't know how safe they are. Nobody even bothered to do a study to find out, or even do basic safety checks, before they installed them. The backscatter machines are banned completely in the EU and several prominent doctors have been urging more studies for a variety of people who may be more susceptible to the damage X-rays do to your cells. The president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements says there should be an effort to verify millimeter wave scanners are safe for frequent use [that has still not been done]. I was going to make a fourth point about Michael Chertoff (and others) making money off selling the scanners to the government, but i'll let an old guy in Congress rant instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drm9fz48mM4#t=4m1s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drm9fz48mM4#t=4m1s (turns out to be a mountain out of a molehill, but the lobbying implications are there and the money is too) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_...
- Derbasti 13y ago
  50% false positives is no problem at all as long as the false negatives are low.
  - 67726e 13y ago
    If you don't take into account the total "fuck the 4th Amendment" aspect. Then again it's an "Administrative Search" so that somehow makes it ok.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
Funny that those are our choices.

Can someone please explain what's wrong with going through the machine? If it means not having my balls squeezed, it sounds pretty good to me.

by highace 13y ago

Can someone please explain what's wrong with going through the machine? If it means not having my balls squeezed, it sounds pretty good to me.

marshray 13y ago

Because it's a strip search.

Joeboy 13y ago
Further to that, once you can no longer travel in your own country without being strip searched it means, as the article puts it, that the terrorists have won. It's a test and a defense of freedom.
- UweSchmidt 13y ago
  The terrorists don't win if people in America lose rights. Wtf? Terrorists win if they don't turn into terrorists in the first place but live normal happy lives in their countries, maintaining a mild disdain for the decadent west while admiring the nice parts, like freedom and wealth. The radicalization surely has many roots, one of them being real and imagined pressure from the West. I propose looking into that aspect a bit more. I think we (the West) are not intentionally evil towards the arab/muslim world, but that politics happens and power is applied and these people often get the short end of the deal, leading to resentment and strengthening the crazy mullah's teachings.
  - speeder 13y ago
    I am from another place that had problems with US, and I always believed US is intentionally evil, and it don't proved otherwise yet. It behaves like a school bully, that protect its interests by beating other kids until they hand their lunch over, and when someone ask why, he says he was hungry.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    I think you've missed his point. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think it's not a useful response here. On of Osama bin Laden's stated goals was to bankrupt the US. For $1m or so in initial investment, he's gotten us to waste a trillion or so on a pointless Iraq adventure. The TSA has only cost us $100bn or so, not counting the countless hours and energy lost waiting in line and performing pointless rituals. But more broadly, he's a terrorist. As the name suggests, the goal is to create fear. And the TSA is a giant institutionalization of that fear. It's only scared people who give up their rights. The TSA is both a response to fear and a creator of fear, and having scared this guy into compliance, they have done their job.

xpaulbettsx 13y ago

Consider the following: if that identical machine were in a hospital, it would have been required to go through years of clinical trials to ensure its safety over the long term. The machines they are using are medical equipment. However, because it's in an airport, none of this has happened. Maybe it is safe. Maybe it isn't. It is unproven.

bayesianhorse 13y ago
Is the radiation worse than a long-distance flight?
- biff 13y ago
  Doesn't help the cause if you're already doing a long-distance flight...
- ignostic 13y ago
  Passive mm-wave scanners do not produce radiation. The active mm-wave scanners use non-ionizing radiation which has been studied and shown not to cause cancer. One study even suggested it might reduce metastasis: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20208/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20208/abstrac... The flight itself isn't even that bad, but it is worse than the scanners. You get maybe 5 mrem (50 µSv) flying from London to NYC. http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.... The flight radiation is something you'd want to avoid, but a single flight is almost insignificant. XKCD has a reference chart: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/ Flight radiation is mostly a concern for flight crew.
raverbashing 13y ago
Enjoy your MRIs costing 4 (or maybe 5) digits Yes, it should be tested for safety, if in one case it looks like a lack of due diligence, in another it looks like an excessive CYA policy with some incentive from tort cases.
abrichr 13y ago
I was under the impression that since it uses radio waves, there was no question about its safety (unlike the back scatter machines). Or are we also worried about cell phones?

chris_wot 13y ago

Perhaps I want someone to squeeze my balls? I think the main objection to the millimetre wave scanner is that it's a virtual strip search.

krichman 13y ago

I don't trust them to not save the images, I don't trust them to not get hacked, and I don't want some random black hat to have images of my body over time.

krichman 13y ago
PS: Michael Chertoff, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, represents scanner manufacturers. So the whole thing is a massive conflict of interest if you ask me.
evertonfuller 13y ago
They are not linked to you or your passport or ID. So there is no 'you' or your 'body' that they can collect over time.
- raesene2 13y ago
  Assuming it's possible to say that two images are from the same person, it would be trivial to work out specifically who that was with any frequent flyer. You'd just build up a body of images of "person 1" then cross-reference with flight records till you narrow it down to only being one possible person who had been on all those flights...
  - hyperventilator 13y ago
    For what possible fucking reason! This is foolishness or possibly a form of mental illness.
    - icecreampain 13y ago
      Wiretapping and saving everything in the internet, including comms from allies and neutral parties, is foolishness or possibly a form of mental illness.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      I hadn't thought about it before you asked, but this would be a perfect way to build up detailed information for biometric databases. You'd then use that with lower-fidelity sources, like video cameras. You've got head shape, hand shape, height, shoulder width, BMI, and length of every major body segment. From there you can calculate all sorts of ratios to apply to people, and I'd bet you could make a pretty good guess at gait for motion analysis. A database like this would also be proof against facial surgery; changing bone lengths is harder. So if you get a known terrorist once, you should be able to spot them much more easily in the future. And of course you'd keep the records indefinitely, because you never know who's going to turn out to be a terrorist. Or a drug mule. Or a political protester [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO for the historical version; http://nymag.com/news/features/nypd-demographics-unit-2013-9/ http://nymag.com/news/features/nypd-demographics-unit-2013-9... for the modern one.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

I am suspicious that they are gathering biometric data (exact body dimensions) with the scans. Collating that data with flight manifests and surveillance footage would lead to very accurate automated systems for identifying people from any surveillance footage.

peterwwillis 13y ago

Body scanners are like a big "Fuck You, Citizen" from your government. First, we know they don't work, because they only work up to the epidermis, and sometimes not even that well, as lots of dangerous things have gotten through them. If you wanted to get something on a plane, put it up your butt or somehow else in your body and it will work 100% of the time. Just don't carry a gun strapped to your body. (Though that has worked too) In addition, even when I go through the scanners (because I am a very obedient citizen) I still get a ball-hugging pat-down after going through the scanner, because they weren't sure what they were looking at. When Germany tested the millimeter wave scanners they reported around 50% false positives that required additional pat-downs. Second, invasion of privacy. They're taking pictures of your naked body. And gross people have been caught ogling the pictures. Besides just being creepy, there are people who have been sexually assaulted and this amounts to an additional assault, and can be emotionally damaging. Not even considering how kids and their rights factor in here. Third, we don't know how safe they are. Nobody even bothered to do a study to find out, or even do basic safety checks, before they installed them. The backscatter machines are banned completely in the EU and several prominent doctors have been urging more studies for a variety of people who may be more susceptible to the damage X-rays do to your cells. The president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements says there should be an effort to verify millimeter wave scanners are safe for frequent use [that has still not been done]. I was going to make a fourth point about Michael Chertoff (and others) making money off selling the scanners to the government, but i'll let an old guy in Congress rant instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drm9fz48mM4#t=4m1s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drm9fz48mM4#t=4m1s (turns out to be a mountain out of a molehill, but the lobbying implications are there and the money is too) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_...

Derbasti 13y ago
50% false positives is no problem at all as long as the false negatives are low.
- 67726e 13y ago
  If you don't take into account the total "fuck the 4th Amendment" aspect. Then again it's an "Administrative Search" so that somehow makes it ok.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

Funny that those are our choices.