Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
While I also dislike the
While I also dislike the backscatter x-ray scanners, the fact that he's using a debunked fake image as evidence of what the scanner renders really weakens his argument.
The "nude" picture he's using has been frequently debunked as a fake in many place, one of them here. Real backscatter x-rays are not nearly as high resolution or detailed. they look more like this.
That being said, I also request a patdown when confronted with one of those scanners for both privacy and safety concerns. Frequent exposure to x-ray radiation is not a good thing, and between a lot of business travel and regular medical screenings, I try and limit my exposure.
They actually look more like
They actually look more like this:
http://www.rupture.co.uk/Terminal%204.html
Fake scanner images
I hope he knows those images are not real! They were created by German magazine Bild to illustrate an article on the scanners. They started with a stock photo of a nude woman: does this (NSFW) look familiar?
So tell him.
And you're also hoping he reads UHub to see your comment? His blog has a comment function.
Anyway, David Pogue had an interesting commentary about the scan:
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/the-prob...
Good point. Done.
Good point. Done.
Indeed
The real images are much less flattering.
One of the most famous WBI images is that of the TSA Lab director Susan Hallowell.
She went through the machine as a test, and her loving colleagues posted the picture online. She was ripshit, and the program was delayed for three years as the TSA tried to develop some sort of image security protocol. The rules (the theory) states that the machines are not capable of storing or exporting images, and the image operator is a different person from the scanner operator, and cannot see the person scanned, just the scan. There's also a "privacy screen" which selectively blurs the image. Of course, that can be turned off with one click.
The machines are time-consuming and highly ineffective, with a very high false alarm rate. A majority of the times the image operator notifies the scanner operator of a threat (which he has to do by radio, creating communication difficulties), said threat cannot be identified. The threat item has to be something very large and very obvious - you know, the kind of thing that would easily set off a metal detector - to actually be found on the person.
The biggest joke about them is that the latest bombing attempt in the US (the Underwear Bomber) could not have been detected by these machines. They do not see through flesh, and any items hidden in folds of flesh (say, under your junk) will not be found.
The images aren't very good, it's true, but of course a bottom-feeder locked in a room with the computer by himself all day will figure out where the computer stores them and how to export them. It's a given that some pervert will start amassing a library of images of children. The only question I have is whether the images will be considered child pornography by the courts.
And meanwhile, did I mention that TSA Lab director Susan Hallowell has a hideous naked picture of her on the web? She looks like a human mole-rat.
I really don't like these
I really don't like these scanners, along with much of the other over-the-top, designed to make people feel safer without actually discouraging terrorist safety measures. The biggest problem is that the TSA is not doing much to inform passengers about the machines and their rights not to walk through them. I was ushered into such a machine in San Francisco a few months back, and the scanning was complete before I had even realized what was happening. Needless to say, I'll be requesting a pat down from now on, now that I actually know what the machines look like. But how many other people might prefer a pat down and simply don't know that their nude body image is on display somewhere?
I hate these because the last
I hate these because the last time I went through one, I had to get a pat down AFTER. They're so detailed that the guy caught a glimpse of something in my pocket. Turned out to be a freakin' receipt. Instead of just asking me to empty my pocket, though, they went through the whole feel-me-up first. Naked pictures AND a pat down? Next time I'll just go straight to the pat down.
Speak Softly and Look Pregnant
I recently discovered that when I wear a certain style of peasant blouse (gathered under the bust line)- a type that is currently in fashion - I get waved around and through. No hand search either.
Gee...
I tried that and they just called me lard-ass and made fun of my fashion sense.
Im also concerned about the
Im also concerned about the radiation. Sure, they say it's safe. They said that about asbestos and cigarettes too.
I also dont know how you tell the naked machines and the bomb machines apart. The bomb machines shoot air at you, and are fun.
Backscatter Radiation
The WBIs use backscatter radiation. That's ionizing radiation that is not powerful enough to pass through tissue, so it bounces back. One scan gives you about as much radiation exposure as two minutes on the airplane, or one banana. Your dosage will be approximately 100,000 times greater during a CT scan. So avoid one of those instead.
The explosives trace detectors puff air at you and make noise doing so. With the WBIs you will hold an arms-up pose in front of a wall or in a little cabin.
Another report from Terminal E
The family and I went thru this at terminal E last Friday. My wife has said she will quit flying before doing the body scanner, so when she saw it she about freaked out. I reminded her she could ask for a pat-down, which she did, but they were still trying to get her to walk thru the scanner to get to the pat-down area. She refused for a short time and the TSA staff had to talk to her more forcefully to get her to go thru. She says the pat down was less thorough then we get when attending an NFL game.
I did go thru the scanner as did my son (I gave him the option of pat-down or scan). My thinking on "security theater" in the past has been to just get it over with; and I'd rather somebody look at xray pics of me than feel me up. I haven't looked into the radiation dangers of this, which my wife reminded me of later, so that may be enough to get me to ask for the pat-down in the future.
This being my first time experiencing this, some thoughts:
1. There definitely needs to be more information at the checkpoint regarding the scanners and your right to refuse to be scanned. As we stood in line, we saw nobody refuse. After my wife opted for the pat-down, a number of people in line behind us did the same.
2. The TSA staff was downright rude and seemed put-off by my wife's request. The agent who was manning the entrance to the carry-on xray made a comment to me (knowing this was my wife that asked for the pat-down) about how some people just don't understand that they can't see the images there and they don't even know where the agent is that is looking at them; he did this in a sort of laughing manner, like he was thinking "can you believe this crazy lady?". I told him that some people don't understand that many of us are not happy about surrendering our constitutional rights just so we can travel by air. I wanted to take it further including a remark about "security theater", but as I mentioned before, my MO is to just get it over with. I was also starting to get angry as at this time they were yelling at my wife to walk thru the scanner and I was certainly not interested in escalating the situation which would likely be a losing battle for me.
3. The delay that use of the scanner causes is going to force some changes, and I'm afraid it may be a "double-down" as noted by an earlier poster that removes the pat-down option. I would hope that wouldn't happen, but in the meantime I think everybody should start requesting pat-downs so that if anybody is gathering stats on this it might get some attention.
Certainly a lie
That they didn't even know where the agent is who looks at the images is certainly a lie. They know exactly where s/he is, and on odd days they switch jobs and do it themselves. These machines are not networked, and it would take decades for the TSA to create a secure network architecture, what with government bidding bureaucracy in a circular firing squad. The operator is in a small closed room nearby, hard-wired to the scanner.
The option of a pat-down instead is a legal requirement coming from the highest levels, and the local TSA tries to make their job easier by not letting you know you have that option.
As for radiation, as I mentioned above, if you're that concerned about radiation, you really should not be flying at all.
I'm wondering if people have started spelling out messages yet. Tape letters in tinfoil to a sheet of paper and tuck it inside your shirt. Try "Stop staring at me, you pervert" or "If you can read this, you are violating the constitution."
My radiation concerns are the
My radiation concerns are the effects of additional radiation. Did some reading last night and it doesn't seem to be a huge concern, but at least one doctor thinks there will be potential for increase cases of basil cell carcinoma on the head and neck of some people who are particularly sensitive.
Brilliant! Would love to see the treatment you get from TSA after they see this.
Particularly sensitive
If you are particularly sensitive to the level of radiation you will receive from these machines, you should not be flying in the first place. You will receive several times (30X, 100X...) the dosage during your flight, simply from background sources at high altitude. You were going to get the same dosage in the next hour at sea level anyway. Or from eating a banana. Really, if your doctor is telling you this, get another doctor, because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The scans to watch out for are (drum roll) the ones your doctor prescribes. In those scans, because the radiation must be strong enough to actually penetrate your flesh, it is much stronger - like 100,000 times stronger for a CT scan.
Here's a chart for your comparison.
Ooh! Gotta get me one o' those!
For those of you curious (as was I) about the last item on the list;
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=tips