High Definition Airport Scanners -- How we feeling about this?

[ElanthianSiren]

So what do you think? I chuckled at the "nobody will be able to print or save the images!!11one" bit and the blurring of the face. All in all, airlines are private entities, and I believe that they can do as they wish and tolerate what they wish in their business, but I really hope if ticket sales start to drop more, due in part to long waits, new security such as this, and rising ticket costs, they won't be bailed out by Uncle Sammy.



STORY:


Scanners that see through clothing installed in US airports Tue Jun 10, 5:11 PM ET



NEW YORK (AFP) - Security scanners which can see through passengers' clothing and reveal details of their body underneath are being installed in 10 US airports, the US Transportation Security Administration said Tuesday.


A random selection of travellers getting ready to board airplanes in Washington, New York's Kennedy, Los Angeles and other key hubs will be shut in the glass booths while a three-dimensional image is made of their body beneath their clothes.

The booths close around the passenger and emit "millimeter waves" that go through cloth to identify metal, plastics, ceramics, chemical materials and explosives, according to the TSA.

While it allows the security screeners -- looking at the images in a separate room -- to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs as well as other details of their bodies, the passenger's face is blurred, TSA said in a statement on its website.

The scan only takes seconds and is to replace the physical pat-downs of people that is currently widespread in airports.

TSA began introducing the body scanners in airports in April, first in the Phoenix, Arizona terminal.

The installation is picking up this month, with machines in place or planned for airports in Washington (Reagan National and Baltimore-Washington International), Dallas, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, Miami and Detroit.

But the new machines have provoked worries among passengers and rights activists.

"People have no idea how graphic the images are," Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union, told AFP.

The ACLU said in a statement that passengers expecting privacy underneath their clothing "should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane."

Besides masking their faces, the TSA says on its website, the images made "will not be printed stored or transmitted."

"Once the transportation security officer has viewed the image and resolved anomalies, the image is erased from the screen permanently. The officer is unable to print, export, store or transmit the image."

Lara Uselding, a TSA spokeswoman, added that passengers are not obliged to accept the new machines.

"The passengers can choose between the body imaging and the pat-down," she told AFP.

TSA foresees 30 of the machines installed across the country by the end of 2008. In Europe, Amsterdam's Schipol airport is already using the scanners.

[Paradii]

its hard not to laugh when you see the phrase penile implants.


Luckily, I wear a lead condom whenever I fly anywhere. It started just for comfort, but now there is a true reason.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I don't really care. As long as it's not being stored, and people have the option of opting out for a physical search, I don't see a huge issue.

Maybe it's because as-is I'm in danger of having to flash body parts to TSA agents due to having body piercings. Being able to be scanned as "proof" that it's a fucking nipple ring and not a bomb is a step up to me.

[ElanthianSiren]

Lead nipple shields ftmfw.

The story made me think about the recent one though where a lady was stopped by airline security and made to remove a barbell from her nipple. So say you opt for the pat down with something on your penile area (like a PA); by getting on a plane, have you signed away your rights not to have your cock grabbed?

:lol: I so want to work in airline security.

Edit: ...but then maybe not. The first 60 year old wrinkly geezer would just kill the free porn aspect :(

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I read that story too, and I would have told them to fuck off (and gotten a new ticket) before using their dirty pliers on my jewelry.

Seriously though, I don't imagine anyone getting off on seeing the kind of crappy 3-D images you'd get from that sort of a scan of someone's body. I mean it's not like it's gonna show up in porno-quality right?

And as a side note, I got stopped leaving SeaTac a month or so ago because I was individually scanned and my piercings caused the dreaded beeping. I offered the lady to see that I was in fact pierced and she said she'd just take me at my word.

[ElanthianSiren]

Not sure about the quality. I only read the one I posted.

The idea of my boyfriend being scanned is the only thing that ticks me off; it's a possession thing, even if they don't care.

For me, I don't fly much and my piercings have never set off anything. I also don't wear other jewelry though, and with the shoe rule, my steel toes don't set anything off either. Flashing me doesn't bother me.

If the actions of the TSA though prompt fewer people to buy in combination with the recent jack up of ticket prices, I don't believe the government should step in. That's one thing I'm sick of seeing. ATCs striking? Bail the airlines out. Not making enough cash? Bail the airlines out. Thank god they finally let some die.

[Tisket]

I think it's an unnecessary indignity. I don't think the minimal security gain is worth the cost either. I imagine people will get used to this too most likely. We adapt to all sorts of annoying shit.

The talk about the face blurring is stupid though since it can just as easily be reversed. And I don't buy that the image will be immediately deleted. I can see the airlines justifying keeping the images longer just in case something untoward occurs on the flight.

Also, if I am travelling with one of my young children, does this mean an anonomyous stranger might have the right to view them in one of those machines? Fuck that.

[Sypher]

Security is a joke. I don't feel more protected at all. Don't you think if terrorists are sophisticated enough to pull off 9/11 they would do some homework, maybe even purchase a mock copy of this thing, in order to bypass it. come on...

[AnticorRifling]

Security is a joke. I don't feel more protected at all. Don't you think if terrorists are sophisticated enough to pull off 9/11 they would do some homework, maybe even purchase a mock copy of this thing, in order to bypass it. come on...

I lol at everything in this post.

I still want to tape a ziploc bag to my leg full of kool-aid or iced tea just to get a pat down.

[Clove]

So say you opt for the pat down with something on your penile area (like a PA); by getting on a plane, have you signed away your rights not to have your cock grabbed?Um, we mostly sign away that right by puberty, ES and spend the rest of our lives encouraging it.

[Clove]

I think it's an unnecessary indignity. I don't think the minimal security gain is worth the cost either. I imagine people will get used to this too most likely. We adapt to all sorts of annoying shit.I actually think this adds dignity to the process. If you're randomly selected for more intense scrutiny, you have another option on the method. Before it was either pat-down, or go home. Now if pat-down doesn't appeal to you, you can have a scan. If the scan gives the willies, you can have a pat-down. Or you can go home.

[AnticorRifling]

Is there a chance someone can pat me down while I'm getting scanned?

[CrystalTears]

Um, we mostly sign away that right by puberty, ES and spend the rest of our lives encouraging it.
:lol:

[Clove]

Is there a chance someone can pat me down while I'm getting scanned?The defense rests.

[DeV]

Not to mention the fact that there are far too many idiots conducting airport security. The other half with brains are overworked, underpaid, and undertrained. Either way, I agree with Tisket in that we will adapt. We always do.

[Clove]

Seriously though, I don't imagine anyone getting off on seeing the kind of crappy 3-D images you'd get from that sort of a scan of someone's body. I mean it's not like it's gonna show up in porno-quality right?I personally couldn't care less if they DID get-off. There's just no controlling what people find exciting. My wife unwittingly inspires wet dreams every time she eats a frozen banana at an outdoor fair, and it always results in the same conversation "You've got to stop eating things like that..." "Like what I'm JUST EATING MY BANANA" "You're drawing a crowd." "You're silly." "No, I'm not, lets go over there by that security guard..." *glancing around nervously*

As long as there isn't any personal interaction between me and the screener they can be bored stiff (pun intended) or drooling all over the monitor. Frankly even though I don't really mind a pat-down, between the two the scan seems less personal and less intrusive.

It would be different if images could be stored and distributed, or the scanner operator could identify you later (thus opening up the possibility for future stalking/harrassment) but since they can't I actually think it's a good idea as an alternative to a pat-down.

[AnticorRifling]

... My wife unwittingly inspires wet dreams every time she eats a frozen banana at an outdoor fair.

Yeah she does that for me too.

[AnticorRifling]

You can't capture or store these images? Ohh I feel safe now. Really? Because we don't all have cameras on our phones. A security perv can easily take snap shots of the screen. This will happen, you know it will. Holy huge ta tas on monitor 1 (cell phone camera snap shot). Look at the luggage in that dude's pants on 2 (cell phone camera snap shot) etc, etc.

[Some Rogue]

I don't really care.

Yeah, not really surprising that someone that would bare their twat and half a dozen other body parts to be pierced wouldn't care...:p

[Clove]

You can't capture or store these images? Ohh I feel safe now. Really? Because we don't all have cameras on our phones. A security perv can easily take snap shots of the screen. This will happen, you know it will. Holy huge ta tas on monitor 1 (cell phone camera snap shot). Look at the luggage in that dude's pants on 2 (cell phone camera snap shot) etc, etc.Oh it will happen at the expense of the offender's job. Yes, it CAN be abused, but if proper policies are enforced you can keep the level of abuse negligible.

[Paradii]

So say you opt for the pat down with something on your penile area (like a PA); by getting on a plane, have you signed away your rights not to have your cock grabbed?

:lol: I so want to work in airline security.





The idea of my boyfriend being scanned is the only thing that ticks me off; it's a possession thing, even if they don't care.




So its ok for you to grab other men's junk, but its not okay for other men/women to look at your boyfriend?

can you relay a message to your boyfriend for me?

BREAK UP WITH THIS CRAZY HOE, SHE'S CRAZY!


Thanks

[TheEschaton]

I have no problem showing it off to people. Let them stare at the glory!

[ElanthianSiren]

Obviously, the term facetious goes right over your head. :) Do you also not get sarcasm? How about mock female chauvinism? I'll own to being guilty of that from time to time.

You could tell my boyfriend yourself if you like; in fact, I'd encourage it. When he's done laughing at you, you can come back here and continue being over sensitive on a message board.

[ElanthianSiren]

QQ I'm sure he's touched in all the wrong places that you care so much.

[Celephais]

You can't capture or store these images? Ohh I feel safe now. Really? Because we don't all have cameras on our phones. A security perv can easily take snap shots of the screen. This will happen, you know it will. Holy huge ta tas on monitor 1 (cell phone camera snap shot). Look at the luggage in that dude's pants on 2 (cell phone camera snap shot) etc, etc.
This was my first thought too... except unlike you I wouldn't be snapping the "luggage in some dude's pants". I also started thinking about how to apply for this job. If a judge is posting pics from a trial, obviously some security guard somewhere will keep some of his favorite scans.

I also doubt they'll scan underage individuals (I didn't read the whole article, did it say?) either, so there can still be mules.

... I am fine with this though, if it speeds up security, good enough.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Yeah, not really surprising that someone that would bare their twat and half a dozen other body parts to be pierced wouldn't care...:p

Strawman :p

It's not like I live in a nudist colony or take pleasure in exposing myself.

I just don't foresee these machines as having the kind of capability of producing good images beyond a basic "map" of my physical body. I find it to be less intrusive that a TSA agent can get a crappy 3-D scan of my body to prove I'm not strapped with a bomb/gun/knife, rather than me having to go with them into a private room and be physically touched and then have to show parts of my body.

[Paradii]

This was my first thought too... except unlike you I wouldn't be snapping the "luggage in some dude's pants". I also started thinking about how to apply for this job. If a judge is posting pics from a trial, obviously some security guard somewhere will keep some of his favorite scans.

I also doubt they'll scan underage individuals (I didn't read the whole article, did it say?) either, so there can still be mules.

... I am fine with this though, if it speeds up security, good enough.

I don't think they said that they wouldn't scan underagers. It may be obvious to tell someone is under 15 or so, but 16-20 is pretty hard to spot sometimes, even when sober. So i bet they will just scan everyone.

Hell, I still occasionally get carded to get into R rated movies, and I am 26.

[ElanthianSiren]

If YOU google tadar, it has a scan of something they use in Britain using the same 3mm waves. Not pasting it here, though they did blur out the guy's junk.

[Celephais]

I don't think they said that they wouldn't scan underagers. It may be obvious to tell someone is under 15 or so, but 16-20 is pretty hard to spot sometimes, even when sober. So i bet they will just scan everyone.

Hell, I still occasionally get carded to get into R rated movies, and I am 26.
Don't your airfare tickets say "adult/child" or whatever?

I'm expecting from a legal standpoint they won't be able to scan minors...

[BigWorm]

Strawman :p

It's not like I live in a nudist colony or take pleasure in exposing myself.

I just don't foresee these machines as having the kind of capability of producing good images beyond a basic "map" of my physical body. I find it to be less intrusive that a TSA agent can get a crappy 3-D scan of my body to prove I'm not strapped with a bomb/gun/knife, rather than me having to go with them into a private room and be physically touched and then have to show parts of my body.

That's definitely wasn't a strawman. Begging the question maybe, but not a strawman.

[ElanthianSiren]

I believe child is a business distinction Ceph.

Like you are a child up to age x, but you can still be a minor after being a child. Of course, they could obviously change that, and then we'd have mules, as someone already noted.

Yeah according to United child ends at 2.

[Trouble]

I work for TSA as a contractor in their IT Security program. I do the security testing for the passenger and carry-on baggage screening devices. One of my colleagues was demonstrating the WBIs to me and they output enough detail to make me blush after seeing her scan. She has a huge rack and although you couldn't see the areolae (sp?), you could see nipples. I could also easily tell what type of underwear she was wearing.

The pictures aren't in color and the faces are blurred, but I still think it's a little too much detail to have some minimum-wage goofball looking at all day, even if he is in a separate room. It might be better if they only had same-sex reviewers. I also think they sould do something special for underage adolescents.

Edit: As a disclaimer, I haven't seen the ones actually deployed in the field, only the ones at the testing lab here at HQ. It's possible they have different image details/qualities in the field.

[Clove]

I find it to be less intrusive that a TSA agent can get a crappy 3-D scan of my body to prove I'm not strapped with a bomb/gun/knife, rather than me having to go with them into a private room and be physically touched and then have to show parts of my body.That's what I'm saying (though neither bothers me). It's also good that you have a choice if you're unfortunate enough to get randomly screened.

Frankly I think the security measures are dumb in general. If I had my way, every passenger would receive a TSA-issued ball-peen hammer for the flight for the purpose of administering attitude adjustments to would-be hijackers. But that's just me.

[Latrinsorm]

I work with the radiation they use. I can chime in with Trouble and assure you that it's not porno quality, but you can definitely tell dudes from ladies (among other things).

This technology is so much more reliable, more efficient, and safer than isolated physical pat downs that it's ridiculous. The key is that unlike metal detectors, this technology can positively identify any sort of chemical agent you can think of: TNT, anthrax, kool-aid, etc.
Don't you think if terrorists are sophisticated enough to pull off 9/11 they would do some homework, maybe even purchase a mock copy of this thing, in order to bypass it. come on...There is no stealth technology for THz radiation. The only way to hide something from it is to shield it with something opaque to it (e.g. metal) and since people are not opaque that would send up huge red flags too.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

That's definitely wasn't a strawman. Begging the question maybe, but not a strawman.

I realized that after I left my computer and went back to sleep. I was too lazy to come back and fix it.

Still, it was a logical fallacy.

[Warriorbird]

I last worked airport security in 2002. Imaging technology was more than good enough to produce a good scan of somebody's body then.

I haven't flown as much since I quit working airport security either.

[Some Rogue]

I realized that after I left my computer and went back to sleep. I was too lazy to come back and fix it.

Still, it was a logical fallacy.

And a joke. Mostly.


Dorks.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I dunno, while I see why people wouldn't be okay with it, even after looking at a sample of the scan, and at the process in context with regular life, I just don't think it's a huge deal. If it's cold enough out you can tell I have nipples too, without the scanner. And I think I'm more at risk of getting porno-esque pictures of myself shot while I'm in a bikini at a water park or on the beach by some weird voyeur pervert, than someone getting their kicks off on (and saving for future use) a weird translucent image of my scanned body.

I understand WHY it would upset people though, hence why I think it's good that you can opt out if you want. I just think in the broad scope of things, and for me personally, it's easier to have my body scanned and be done with it than have a total stranger touching me and possibly having to outright flash them.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Dorks.

:cry:

[Stanley Burrell]

Kennedy is such a piece of shit. You could probably step on a WWII landmine that would set off the metal detectors ... Five feet away from the mother-effin' scanners themselves.

Terrorists can just hide under stacks of garbage inside the airport itself. Piece of cheap fucking feces airline terminal.

[Clove]

Kennedy is such a piece of shit.You were aware that this thread was about a new airport security feature... not about your opinions on airports, right Stan?

[Stanley Burrell]

You were aware that this thread was about a new airport security feature... not about your opinions on airports, right Stan?

No, I thought this was the "Let's Voice Our Opinions on Grimy Airport" thread.

Man. I have to stop doing that.

[Clove]

No, I thought this was the "Let's Voice Our Opinions on Grimy Airport" thread.

Man. I have to stop doing that.Agreed

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'd think they'd have to store the images, in case later a disgruntled employee or passenger claims sexism or something when the sue. As someone else mentioned before, you KNOW someone would be oogling the pictures and telling their buddies at the bar that night or what not. It's human nature.

That said, I really don't care one way or another.

[Lucas]

http://depers.nl/UserFiles/Image/2007/200705/20070515/millimeterscan.jpg

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/uploads/2007/02/xray.jpg

http://blog.photos2view.com/files/airport-xrays-scanning-you.jpg

It's really not a huge deal folks. If you are forced to use these pictures as sexual stimuli, then you should get a subscription onto the internet or ten times better go to your local strip club.

[Clove]

I'd think they'd have to store the images, in case later a disgruntled employee or passenger claims sexism or something when the sue. As someone else mentioned before, you KNOW someone would be oogling the pictures and telling their buddies at the bar that night or what not. It's human nature.

That said, I really don't care one way or another.How is this different than a security guard staring at a hot chick going through the metal detector? Or on a security camera? What prevents them from talking about them with their buddies later? Or capturing a picture? A picture with a FACE that can be identified to her buddies or anyone ELSE she shows it to.

What's important (in my opinion) is that there is no personal connection between the inspector and the passenger that extends past the inspection. The inspector doesn't have the means to personally identify the passenger after the screening. She can't follow him, or harass him, because she can't IDENTIFY HIM. Even if the pictures were somehow captured and shared it would be a faceless body. She could post them on a page with a million hits a day and there's no way anyone could look at them and say "Oh my god... that's DAD!".

[Tisket]

The inspector doesn't have the means to personally identify the passenger after the screening. She can't follow him, or harass him, because she can't IDENTIFY HIM. Even if the pictures were somehow captured and shared it would be a faceless body. She could post them on a page with a million hits a day and there's no way anyone could look at them and say "Oh my god... that's DAD!".


If I am not mistaken, the technology that blurs a face is simply a software program. The same program can be used to UNblur a face.

[Stanley Burrell]

Yeah, they've been doing this at Bradley for quite some time now.

I try and pop wood prior to the scan. My penis is a terrorist.

[Tisket]

I try and pop wood prior to the scan.

Whatever you have to do to appear normal, Stan...

[Stanley Burrell]

Agreed

Seconded.

[Stanley Burrell]

Whatever you have to do to appear normal, Stan...

The burn, IT DOTH HURT!

But yes, my pants have fallen the fuck down after belt-removal instruction, in Bradley, because I was wearing a pair of 210-pound boxers at the weight of 130.

Very serious airport guy instructs me to, "Please pull up your pants, now, sir."

And I did.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Yeah, they've been doing this at Bradley for quite some time now.

I try and pop wood prior to the scan. My penis is a terrorist.

They have these at Bradley?

All the times I've flown out of that airport I've never seen them-- just the wand thingy/pat down check.

[Clove]

If I am not mistaken, the technology that blurs a face is simply a software program. The same program can be used to UNblur a face.If it means that much to you, I'll concede that it's possible to capture the scanner image and reveal enough details in it to identify an individual. From the description of the procedure I'm confident that the attempt would be too difficult and the consequences too severe to worry about some TSA agent trying it for a cheap thrill (and a poor quality one if you ask me).

Considerable thought seems to have gone in to making the scanners anonymous enough to make the risk of passengers being abused or harassed as a result of submitting to them ridiculously low.

It's an hysteria fluff story, and that's all. If you're comfortable with all the myriad security cameras that can be used to shoot down your wife/daughter/girlfriend's blouse, this shouldn't even blip your radar.

[Tisket]

Considerable thought seems to have gone in to making the scanners anonymous enough that the risk of passengers being abused or harassed as a result of submitting to scans is ridiculously low.

It's an hysteria fluff story, and that's all. If you're comfortable with all the myriad security cameras that can be used to shoot down your wife/daughter/girlfriend's blouse, this shouldn't even blip your radar.

I don't have a problem with cameras, however, they've become so ubiquitous that even if I did I'd not be able to avoid them. It's something that I can't "opt out of" unless I just stay home 24/7.

There is always a push to reassure the public when new technology is going to be inflicted on them. Seldom does it stay within it's original framework though. In the interest of public safety, we'll learn to put up with and eventually ignore these scanners in airports. I just hope that one day someone doesn't decide to install them in the entrance to stores, maybe to help with shoplifting detection. Or other businesses in the interest of you know, public safety.

[Latrinsorm]

Who doesn't want to shoot down Tisket's wife's blouse?

[Tisket]

Who doesn't want to shoot down Tisket's wife's blouse?

lmao

[Sean of the Thread]

I don't see the big deal especially if there's an option. Americans are way prude when it comes to boobs and cock. Like I care if some twat in a backroom sees my package. I prolly already fucked her sister anyways.

[Trouble]

How is this different than a security guard staring at a hot chick going through the metal detector? Or on a security camera? What prevents them from talking about them with their buddies later? Or capturing a picture? A picture with a FACE that can be identified to her buddies or anyone ELSE she shows it to.

This reminds me of my evaluation of the checkpoint scanners at Tampa. The guys there said that every weekend, strippers fly into or out of Tampa from places like Vegas. Many of them have piercings and are barely clothed when going through the lines. They may be bullshitting me, but they say they get flashed routinely. From what I saw on my Thursday night evaluation, I'm thinking most of them have been flashed at least once, if not more often.



It's an hysteria fluff story, and that's all. If you're comfortable with all the myriad security cameras that can be used to shoot down your wife/daughter/girlfriend's blouse, this shouldn't even blip your radar.

Speaking from my TSA-specific experience only, I know that many of the video systems used by TSA are forensic in nature, as opposed to active. So if your wife/daughter was dressed like a whore in a security line, no one would ever look at the video unless the person before or after her did something bad. That's somewhat generalized, but my point is that much of the surveillance video is never viewed.

[Clove]

Speaking from my TSA-specific experience only, I know that many of the video systems used by TSA are forensic in nature, as opposed to active. So if your wife/daughter was dressed like a whore in a security line, no one would ever look at the video unless the person before or after her did something bad. That's somewhat generalized, but my point is that much of the surveillance video is never viewed.Casinos excepted most video surveillance isn't active, but it is as Tisket said ubiquitous and for this reason anyone at anytime faces the risk of some potentially embarrassing pictures getting captured and enjoyed (or shared).

If we're comfortable with the risk that is already there, I don't see how a monochrome topographical scan of your body should worry anyone. That was my point. I didn't mean to imply that TSA was prone to abusing security cams, only that it was possible. Just like all the hypothetical ways people propose this scanner could be abused.

Once the technology gets cheap enough and easy enough to install and operate, it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually ended up other places. Jewelry stores, banks, etc. It's just another CCTV, metal detector, etc.