Anything To Increase SECURITY: Electronic Strip Searches should be mandatory

[Measure for Measure]

One can never be too safe. In the latest act of capitulation towards those seeking to erode our liberty and privacy, Homeland Security introduces The X-Ray Backscatter: "The X-Ray Backscatter inspection system creates photo-like images revealing explosives and plastic weapons, thereby reducing the need for physical body pat-downs."

Swell. How detailed is the image? Privacy advocate and tech consultant Bill Scannel sez, "It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

Backscatters began testing in various airports last year; I am unaware of any reports of leaked photos.

Personally I have no problem with any of this: if you don't want anybody goggling your genitals (or googling your genitals), then there is a simple recourse: don't fly. Or lighten up: think of it as a nude beach. Also, consider joining a gym: it's healthy and we'd rather not see you like that.

[GorillaMan]

Every one of your arguments could apply to a suggestion that everybody should be strip-searched for real. Would you advocate that?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Personally I have no problem with any of this: if you don't want anybody goggling your genitals

The goggles! They do... um... I don't think I want to know.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

What about pregnant women, or those who don't want non-medically required x-rays taken?

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

"It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

And where can I get one?

[Balle_M]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

What about pregnant women, or those who don't want non-medically required x-rays taken?

Amtrak

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by tdn

And where can I get one?

Yeah, I'd consider buying the home game.

[GorillaMan]

Originally Posted by Balle_M

Amtrak

Great suggestion - once those trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific tunnels are laid.

[One And Only Wanderers]

Originally Posted by Zabali_Clawbane

What about pregnant women, or those who don't want non-medically required x-rays taken?

It mentions in the article that the x-rays are low powered to avoid penetration of the skin. Shouldn't that negate any medical issues? Or is there still an exposure (no pun intended) risk?

[El_Kabong]

"It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

What's the big deal? Things like that have sold out of the back pages of comic books for decades.

Anyway, guess I'll leave the foil-wrapped cucumber at home from now on.

[Little Bird]

Originally Posted by One And Only Wanderers

It mentions in the article that the x-rays are low powered to avoid penetration of the skin. Shouldn't that negate any medical issues? Or is there still an exposure (no pun intended) risk?

If it doesn't penetrate the skin, how do we get the image of the knife behind the guy? Does it go around the skin?

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Little Bird

If it doesn't penetrate the skin, how do we get the image of the knife behind the guy? Does it go around the skin?

If we're talking about the same pic, the knife is behind the newspaper, not the guy.

[World Eater]

Can't they do it Total recall style? A green skeleton and red blips for weapons.

[Little Bird]

Originally Posted by Revtim

If we're talking about the same pic, the knife is behind the newspaper, not the guy.

The first one has a knife, glock, and wallet behind the guy, with the x-ray thingabobber in front of him.

[One And Only Wanderers]

Originally Posted by Little Bird

If it doesn't penetrate the skin, how do we get the image of the knife behind the guy? Does it go around the skin?

or the image is composed of super imposed scans of each quadrant.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Balle_M

Amtrak

I'd love to travel by Amtrak. I live in the largest city in Ohio. Do you know how far it is to the nearest Amtrak station?

[Revtim]

Ok, gotcha.

Actually, even though the machine is in front, it looks like a view *from* behind, so maybe that pic was just put together wrong.

[GorillaMan]

Originally Posted by World Eater

Can't they do it Total recall style? A green skeleton and red blips for weapons.

Or CSI-style, where they zoom in ten times in a row, to read the serial number on the boxcutter?

[Revtim]

In every airport I've been at the general public could see what the security folks are seeing on their x-rays, for luggage at least. With this machine are they going to make some effort that only secuirty people can see the images, or will there always be a crowd of dirty fucks with their hands in their pockets behind the security counter, fapping their thanks to Osama bin Laden? And what time should I show up?

[huntergreen]

This isn't exactly a popular idea in the transsexual community, I have to say.

[UncleBeer]

I'd love to travel by Amtrak. I live in the largest city in Ohio. Do you know how far it is to the nearest Amtrak station?

2.16 miles from the centroid of ZIP code 43201 to the station at 111 E. Town St. Of course, that's just bus service to the station in Cleveland, or Toledo.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by GorillaMan

Or CSI-style, where they zoom in ten times in a row, to read the serial number on the boxcutter?

I think true CSI-Style would have the person walk through a High-Frequency Weapon Detecting Unit, which would detect the serial number, the composition of the materials in the boxcutter, and analyze all DNA present on the weapon. It would then cross-reference the serial number and composition to the FBI's databases, which would show that the DNA on the weapon doesn't belong to the person carrying the weapon. All in a manner of seconds and from 10 feet away.

Then they'd arrest him and present the evidence, but he'd remain defiant until David Caruso flipped his sunglasses up, at which point he'd break down in tears and confess.

[D_Odds]

Jeez, Metacom, and I thought Jack Bauer's shouting was intimidating. Makes me wonder who would crack first?

Why don't they just point the satellites that they use in 24 at the airports - you know, the ones that can look inside a building and tell you not only how many people there are by room, but also what floor they are on (but can't find a missile launched towards LA from Iowa).

Anyone wants to ogle me, go right ahead. Then begin visiting a therapist to address your bad taste.

[NurseCarmen]

Flying in an airplane exposes folks to radiation as well.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Revtim

In every airport I've been at the general public could see what the security folks are seeing on their x-rays, for luggage at least. With this machine are they going to make some effort that only secuirty people can see the images, or will there always be a crowd of dirty fucks with their hands in their pockets behind the security counter, fapping their thanks to Osama bin Laden? And what time should I show up?

Actually, given some of the people they have working for the TSA, i think i'd prefer that my fellow-flyers get the view.

[rjung]

Might be easier to just crank airline cabins to 72^oF, and make everyone fly nude.

[buttonjockey308]

Nothing quite like a fuzzy greyscale anatomy picture to really get my engine revving If those bastards want to see my naked grey ass, that's on them. They're gonna have to deal with the image, not me. heh.

[Reeder]

http://www.freedomisslavery.info/images/backscatter.jpg

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by buttonjockey308

Nothing quite like a fuzzy greyscale anatomy picture to really get my engine revving If those bastards want to see my naked grey ass, that's on them. They're gonna have to deal with the image, not me. heh.

Sure, but what about the naked grey, yet somehow strikingly pert breasts of your teenage( daughter (if you have one).

Clearly it's nonsense to say ANYTHING to increase security is OK; binding all of the passengers from head to foot in duct tape, then loading them onto their flight inside reinforced steel coffins would probably increase security (in some ways) and certainly falls under the umbrella definition of ANYTHING, but I don't think it would really be an acceptable trade-off.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by GorillaMan

Every one of your arguments could apply to a suggestion that everybody should be strip-searched for real. Would you advocate that?

Cavity searches are entirely consistent with the logic expressed in the OP.

Originally Posted by Balle-M

Amtrak

Not acceptable. True, the potential for disaster is lower in a train than a plane. Nonetheless, a well-timed derailment can kill hundreds. Ultimately, we may need to extend similar security measures to ground transport that involves large numbers of people.

Originally Posted by Mangetout

...binding all of the passengers from head to foot in duct tape, then loading them onto their flight inside reinforced steel coffins would probably increase security...

I shall take your hypothetical proposal under advisement, consistent with the logic expressed in the OP. Thank you.

Human life is precious. Protecting it from the terrorists must remain our highest priority.

[Larry Mudd]

Obviously, I put this post in the wrong thread.

Originally Posted by Robert Anton Wilson, in 1975, lampooning paranoid conspiracy theories. For twenty minutes.

"...But they can rule by fraud, and by fraud eventually acquire access to the tools they need to finish the job of killing off the Constitution."

"What sort of tools?"

"More stringent security measures. Universal electronic Surveillance. No-Knock Laws. Stop and frisk laws. Government inspection of first-class mail. Automatic fingerprinting, photographing, blood tests and urinalysis of any person arrested before he is charged with a crime. A law making it unlawful to resist even unlawful arrest. Laws establishing detention camps for potential subversives. Gun control laws. Restrictions on travel. The assassinations, you see, establish the need for such laws in the public mind. Instead of realizing that there is a conspiracy, controlled by a handful of men, the people reason - or are manipulated into reasoning - that the entire populace must have its freedom restricted in order to protect the leaders. The people agree that they themselves can't be trusted."

[...]

"...At present rate, within the next few years the Illuminati will have the American people under tighter surveillance than Hitler had the Germans. And the beauty of it is, the majority of the Americans will have been so frightened by Illuminati-backed terrorist incidents that they will beg to be controlled as a masochist begs for the whip."

[Measure for Measure]

On that note, perhaps I should set my irony aside. (BTW, nice quote Larry.)

Mangetout nailed it: we need to apply a rough cost/benefit approach.

I contend that backscatters are unlikely to pass such a test in practice. On the benefit side, the article shows that their effectiveness is rather less than perfect.

Monetarily, I suspect that the devices are expensive.

Furthermore, not having my naked image posted on the internet is certainly an amenity. Indeed, control of that image touches on some rather fundamental privacy issues, not the least of which is the right not to be made to look ridiculous. And I'm a guy.

For many women, cultural conservatives and I suppose certain celebrities and politicians, the stakes may be higher.

-----

The "Nobody is forcing you to fly, etc." argument is a red herring. While requiring business travelers to undergo strip searches is less burdensome than requiring everyone to do so, the former still impinges on liberty. Meaningful penalties for choosing privacy don't have to be criminal: some may take the form of lost employment.

I am disturbed that this story has received such little attention. The tradeoffs between security and freedom should be a matter of public debate. Furthermore, the notion that other benefits of civilization -liberty and privacy are two- can be worth more than safety should be conventional wisdom¹.
---
Finally, I don't necessarily want to rule out this technology. With the proper procedures and automatic pixelization of the head and other areas, judicious application of this technology might be acceptable. But I suspect that in the end expeditiousness would prevail.

-----
¹ Weak spot in my post: perhaps this is conventional wisdom of a sort. Still, one might think that discussion of trade-offs could be a little more explicit.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Did you think airport security couldn't get any more invasive? guess again.

The Homeland Security Department is preparing to install and test high-tech machines at airport checkpoints that will, as the comic-book ads promised, "See Thru Clothing!"

Get ready for electronic portals known as backscatters, expected to be tested at a handful of airports this year, that use X-ray imaging technology to allow a screener to scan a body. And yes, the body image is detailed. Let's not be coy here, ladies and gentlemen:

"Well, you'll see basically everything," said Bill Scannell, a privacy advocate and technology consultant. "It shows nipples. It shows the clear outline of genitals."

Low paid airport security cretins are now going to be ogling yours or your wives' or your daughters' nude bodies as you go through security. It's necessary to protect our freedom and dignity, you see.

[Captain Amazing]

So, how does somebody become an airport screener, anyway? Is there a form I have to fill out or something?

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

So, how does somebody become an airport screener, anyway? Is there a form I have to fill out or something?

I imagine that the controls for those things will lock up due to some "mysterious sticky substance" gumming up the works.

I wonder if there's an S-Video out on those things?

-Joe

[wring]

quick, you should tell this poster !

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Did you think airport security couldn't get any more invasive?

Well, actually, this strikes me as less invasive than a pat-down or having a magnet-wand slid over me.

I save those last two activities for non-travel occasions.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by wring

quick, you should tell this poster !

I hate when that happens. I looked to see if this had been done but I missed it.

Apologies for a redundant thread.

[Binarydrone]

I demand that all passengers get an up to the elbow full cavity search! I won't be happy until everyone on the plane feels as if they have been probed by a moose! Further, I am writing my legislators to demand that they institute a mandatory nudist policy for all commercial flights.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by Binarydrone

I demand that all passengers get an up to the elbow full cavity search! I won't be happy until everyone on the plane feels as if they have been probed by a moose! Further, I am writing my legislators to demand that they institute a mandatory nudist policy for all commercial flights.

You might want to be careful about advocating that "full nude" policy. There are some people that require two seats. It's your call.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

You might want to be careful about advocating that "full nude" policy.

I was hoping it only applied to stewardesses, myself.

[Pullet]

What if they only had nurses maning these machines? Granted, you would probably be a pretty bad nurse if your only job option is airport security. But still, there would be the layer of professionalism.

Sort of.

I dunno. Ideas?

[XT]

I thought I remembered hearing about this a few months ago. Isn't the system supposed to project onto some kind of 'paperdoll' that is generic, instead of actually showing the physical, er, attributes, of those folks walking through it?

THough I have to agree with this sentiment:

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

So, how does somebody become an airport screener, anyway? Is there a form I have to fill out or something?

If I get a job there I'll be sure to hook everyone up. 'What, this laptop here? Its hooked up for, er, security purposes only. Why do I have the external hard drive set up too? Well...security requires loads of, um, disk space. Look....the security of the homeland is serious business. We must all be prepared to make some sacrifices! Now move along!'

-XT

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by xtisme

I thought I remembered hearing about this a few months ago. Isn't the system supposed to project onto some kind of 'paperdoll' that is generic, instead of actually showing the physical, er, attributes, of those folks walking through it?

There are a couple of photos in the link, which, if they are representative, look photographic and quite clear.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There are a couple of photos in the link, which, if they are representative, look photographic and quite clear.

(this is from memory mind you...and its a few months old). My understanding was that, yes, the machine could basically see right through your clothing. Yes, it showed some highly graphic details of folks walking through it. However, again my understanding was that they would use software to project the images of other objects (the kind of stuff they are actually looking for, like guns or maybe drugs) onto a generic paperdoll...and that THIS is what the rent-a-cops behind the screens would be seeing.

All of the above could be compeletly wrong of course and maybe the rent-a-cops are in for a nice show (they won't be too happy seeing ME go through I have no doubts). In which case I'm willing to give up my IT business and sign up. We all need to do our part in the defense of this nation!

-XT

[Polerius]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Low paid airport security cretins are now going to be ogling yours or your wives' or your daughters' nude bodies as you go through security.

Will people be allowed to wear metallic mesh underwear (or something like that, but more comfortable)?

I guess that would make the private areas not visible, but most probably the airport security won't like it.

[Pullet]

Originally Posted by xtisme

In which case I'm willing to give up my IT business and sign up. We all need to do our part in the defense of this nation!

-XT

Dude, have you seen most of us recently? I don't like looking at myself nude and I'm comparatively thin and elasticy.

::shudder::

[Airman Doors, USAF]

For lack of a better way of putting it, you are NOT entitled to right to privacy if that is part of the contract. If the airlines (or the government) determines that it is a necessity that you be searched as a condition of air travel, you have a choice: take it or leave it. If that is the method of search and you have advance warning you can make the informed decision about whether or not you wish to fly.

The only objection I would have is if the X-rays caused any sort of physiological damage. Other than that it's just the price of doing business.

[Pullet]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

For lack of a better way of putting it, you are NOT entitled to right to privacy if that is part of the contract. If the airlines (or the government) determines that it is a necessity that you be searched as a condition of air travel, you have a choice: take it or leave it. If that is the method of search and you have advance warning you can make the informed decision about whether or not you wish to fly.

Naturally. That doesn't mean it ain't annoying.

[DiosaBellissima]

Honestly, unless the screeners are back there touching themselves or giggling- I don't care.

And I agree that this is less intrusive then being patted down or wanded.