Full Body Scanners Violate Child Porn Laws

[Carol]

But Carol, the TSA answered that:


Do they save the scanned images?

"There is no storage capability. No cameras, cellular telephones, or any device capable of capturing an image is permitted in the remotely-located resolution room. Use of such a device is a terminable offense."

Now, they wouldn't lie now would they? I mean, there have been no cases of abuse by them to date, so why should we worry? /sarcasm

I know you're being sarcastic, but I'll be serious for a moment.

Algorithm detection (which is used for more than just threat detection) can be an ugly business. If the algorithm is too loose, that can lead to a false match. If the algorithm is too tight, this can miss a legitimate match. Detection algorithms are never static, they are always being improved by humans. Saving usage data makes for better algorithms, because real life isn't always like the lab.

Most of the backscatter devices are built by a Mass. based company called American Science and Engineering, which is commonly referred to as ASE or AS&E. Their most popular family of devices is called the "Backscatter Z".

This particular datasheet is for the cargo scanner, but I suspect there is little variation other the physical platforms (conveyor belt, etc) that transports the subjects through the scanner. Decide for yourself what capabilities these machines have.

http://goldenepochlimited.com/ZPORTAL_022006_g.pdf

ASE Inspection Features:

Mark and Annotate: Attaches pointers and comment fields to images

Database Function: Provides ability to create records relating to
specific scans

Full Save: Automatically saves the current image to hard disk when its
accompanying database record is saved

Archive: Manually saves stored image files on a CD-RW disk, and creates
a reference to the disk in the database

Export Image: Provides capability to export “what-you-see-is-what-you-get”
(WYSIWYG) images into TIF/JPEG formatted files

AS&E Image Simulator (AIS) Software (Optional): Allows user to view and
manipulate images on a stand-alone PC

RAID Drive (Optional)

Manifest Display (Optional): For manifest verification

Networking Capability (Optional): To a central server

 

[Andy Moynihan]

But how are they gonna afford all this technology to install all these scanners when everyone stops flying and the industry bottoms out?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Carol,
Thanks. Sounds like confirmation that they are lying to me.

Andy,
The Fed will print lots of paper, which will be routed to them by the Platinum-Parachutes in the Senate and House saving them, just like they saved all those other failing industries.

 

[Carol]

But how are they gonna afford all this technology to install all these scanners when everyone stops flying and the industry bottoms out?

They can't. Both the CT scanners and the backscatter scanners have been available for deployment since 2003. Its now 2010, and penetration is still limited.

It is not the feds who directly pay for these scanners, it is the airports. Sometimes the feds give grant money to the airport, but I suspect if one looks at airport-specific trade mags such as Jane's Airport Review, one will find accounts at how fed money is not enough.

Airports make money by charging gate fees or gate rent to the airlines that land at their gates. The higher an airport's operating expense is, the higher the gate fee. The higher the gate fee, the higher the airline's costs are for that route. The higher the cost of the route...the higher the cost of the ticket.

One way or another, its all of us that pay for them.

 

[Tames D]

Yes, in case you were wondering, We have lost the war on terrorism. Game over.

 

[Ken Morgan]

The easiest times I’ve ever had with customs anywhere in the world was in, of all places, Belfast, Northern Ireland. I’ve flown in there three times, including during the troubles, and I got through so fast and easy, I thought they had made a mistake.

I guess the Brits have got the counter terrorism down a bit better then we North Americans.

 

[Bruno@MT]

But Carol, the TSA answered that:


Do they save the scanned images?

"There is no storage capability. No cameras, cellular telephones, or any device capable of capturing an image is permitted in the remotely-located resolution room. Use of such a device is a terminable offense."

Now, they wouldn't lie now would they? I mean, there have been no cases of abuse by them to date, so why should we worry? /sarcasm

Being a skilled software engineer and having worked on many imaging project including governmental ones, I find it unlikely in the extreme that they will not have an option for saving images.

First of all, there is a fat chance those images will be stored in temporary image files during processing. And then there is possibly an option to save images for debugging. Perhaps not on the user interface, but maybe via a config option somewhere. And lastly, there will maybe be an option to save images to prove probable cause, or something similarly CYA.

It doesn't even matter though, because any window environment (be it Windows, or X windows, or whatever it is called on Mac) has options to save screenshots. So no matter how well the software itself will be audited (if at all) anyone with admin access to those machines (the administrators at the very least) wil be able to circumvent it.

 

[MJS]

The problem is that this is the equivalent of a strip search. It's a huge violation of privacy and an act of submission. Think of all the despots that used nakedness to demoralize their citizens...

While it may be the equivalent, it is not the same. IMO, I think that much like anything else, you get these watchdog groups, who've got nothing better to do with their time, than nitpick about stupid ****.

Once again, damned if ya do, damned if ya dont.

 

[Cryozombie]

While it may be the equivalent, it is not the same. IMO, I think that much like anything else, you get these watchdog groups, who've got nothing better to do with their time, than nitpick about stupid ****.

Did you look at the pics in the link bob posted? if thats not Full-frontal nudity shots taken by these machines, I dont know what is.

As far as the "No way to save images" ********... Really? So what evidence will you show in court when you take down Saddam Al Laden and he claims you targeted him because of racial profiling and not because the machine saw his bomb?

 

[MJS]

Did you look at the pics in the link bob posted? if thats not Full-frontal nudity shots taken by these machines, I dont know what is.

Hmm...I may be wrong, but I'm gonna assume for a moment that you've never been a part of a strip search. When I worked for the DOC, we often did strip searches of the inmates. This consisted of them obviously getting undressed, had them lift their nuts as well as squat and cough. Is that camera detecting whether or not someone shoved something up their ***? Hey, if a drug dealer is willing to shove something up their *** or vagina, whats to stop a terrorist?

So, if things like this offend you, what do YOU suggest? Its easy to sit and ***** about every little thing that the airports have to do, every time some ******* causes trouble, but I never hear any suggestions. Random pat downs? Ok, but are people gonna ***** about that, about how much of their valuable time is being wasted?

As far as the "No way to save images" ********... Really? So what evidence will you show in court when you take down Saddam Al Laden and he claims you targeted him because of racial profiling and not because the machine saw his bomb?

Umm...just like you'd have the drugs that the dealer had, you'd obviously have the bomb or whatever other device he was using. As for whether or not stuff is saved...well John, I'm not a computer expert, so I was asking a simple question. No harm in that, is there?

So, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that these random searches, these machines that can see thru clothing, the body wands, etc. offend you, they're violating your 'civil rights' etc. So please share with us, what you would suggest. What do you feel is the best, most effective, least intrusive way to screen passengers?

 

[Ken Morgan]

I just thought of some things.

Two premises.

First premise, (One I’ve mentioned before), terrorists don’t care about the West, democracy etc, it means nothing to them, except as a means to an end. That end is gaining power in their home countries. By elected means the radicals can barely gain 20% of the vote in most countries, so they need an outside enemy to attack them, martyr them, kill women and children. That will gain them popularity in their home countries, and hopefully power, but its not working quite right. They still can’t gain much above the 20% mark.

The power base of terrorists are the uneducated masses, the middle and upper classes have too much to lose and are much too smart to believe in this nonsense to participate. The lower class has menial jobs, or subsistent farming as a means to survival. So the terror networks try to cause economic chaos and get rid of those jobs, but the economic problems are the fault of the west. Hence more recruits.

So as a terrorist you want economic chaos, and you want western military strikes in your country.

Now working on premise number two, terrorists want to gain control of aircraft as weapons, crashing them into buildings and perhaps sports stadiums tec, to cause major disruption and maximum damage.

If you’re a terrorist, with all the security around passenger planes these past few years, why would you even attempt at gaining control of one? Sacrificial lambs. We can all think of better ways to kill masses of people, it’s not that hard. A simple hand grenade at a sporting event or at the mall during Christmas will kill dozens, cause economic problems and retaliatory strikes.

If I’m a serious terrorist I’m ignoring passenger planes, except to throw the odd “loser” at them, because the west will then focus their attention there, and spend billions to try and protect its citizens. Air travel is responsible for tens of billions to all our GDP’s. Instead I’m focusing on the less secure cargo air travel. 1/3 of all flights out of Toronto are cargo flights, I’m assuming most major airports are similar in number. Put some terrorists in a cargo container on a domestic flight, pop out and take over the plane near a major city, and do the damage.

I think we are spending money foolishly. It’s more about making the passengers feel safe to travel then anything else.

It is intelligence, covert operations and negotiations that have always won terrorist campaigns. This one will be no different.

Just thinking out loud on a quiet Saturday morning folks….

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Tee shirt I'll be wearing when I fly:

"Security Theater - Not as funny as Vaudeville, but just as effective."

The problem with the whole system is, it's ineffective, it's inefficient and it's invasive. Any nut can screw up an airport for days just by walking through the out door. And they have.

Guy gets explosives on a plane, despite being turned in by family, being on a no fly and a watch list. Yet grandma has to take her shoes off and have her **** felt up to prove those things by her knees aren't gel bombs. Soon grandpa will have to be turned into a muppet as some TSA shoves a hand up his ***, or we'll have to undergo an MRI prior to boarding just because some nut shoved C4 up his own ***.

And we won't be any safer.

If I want to bring a plane down, I simply sit at the end of a runway with an RPG and frag it.
If I want to shut down the airport, I send a suicide bomber in in December and blow right at the inspection point.

If I want to screw up the entire country, I let them worry about the above, spin their wheels, and compromise themselves in terror of what I might do, while I sit back and enjoy a cold beverage in my cave.

Which option is working against us now?

Yeah.

 

[Cryozombie]

Hmm...I may be wrong, but I'm gonna assume for a moment that you've never been a part of a strip search. When I worked for the DOC, we often did strip searches of the inmates. This consisted of them obviously getting undressed, had them lift their nuts as well as squat and cough. Is that camera detecting whether or not someone shoved something up their ***? Hey, if a drug dealer is willing to shove something up their *** or vagina, whats to stop a terrorist?

Not much, so this scan is pretty worthless then... dog-and-pony show antics.

So, if things like this offend you, what do YOU suggest? Its easy to sit and ***** about every little thing that the airports have to do, every time some ******* causes trouble, but I never hear any suggestions. Random pat downs? Ok, but are people gonna ***** about that, about how much of their valuable time is being wasted?

Its hard to say, some of what *I* deem effective someone else may call Racist, or Profiling, or what have you... hey you can't please everyone... but how about instead of making a machine that takes Nudie-pics but has limited value at detection, we FIND a solution that has real detection value? Sounds like Carol was onto something that did the same thing without the Pron aspects... why cant that be used?

Umm...just like you'd have the drugs that the dealer had, you'd obviously have the bomb or whatever other device he was using. As for whether or not stuff is saved...well John, I'm not a computer expert, so I was asking a simple question. No harm in that, is there?

So, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that these random searches, these machines that can see thru clothing, the body wands, etc. offend you, they're violating your 'civil rights' etc. So please share with us, what you would suggest. What do you feel is the best, most effective, least intrusive way to screen passengers?

This part of my comment wasn't directed at you in general but as a statement twords the idea that they wont/cant save images... and I'd wonder why they wouldn't have a mechanism in place save the evidence that created the probable cause for the search in the first place... and for me to believe they wouldn't would be like me believing the Magical Leopluradon would lead the way to candy mountain. Then I would lose my Kidney.

 

[Nolerama]

What about doing this the next time you fly the "friendly" skies.

Mine would say "Thanks for being underqualified"

I skimmed through the blog, and the author sounds like a reactive child, with a forever-bruised ego; the kind of kid that always wants to say his dad can beat up your dad.

Apparently, one of those plates will result in your bag being checked. This is what happens.

1) You could be cited for interfering with the screening process by deliberately causing a distraction.

Lots of things distract TSA screeners. Like bright colors, soda fizzies, and Play Doh.

2) If there is a prohibited item concealed underneath the plate, you will be cited for artful concealment of a prohibited item.

This is the loophole they'll use to strip-search anyone that pulls this stunt off: "Man, I think that bottle of water you accidentally brought in your bag is dangerous. Better drop trou so I can make sure you're not hiding another water bottle up there."

3) If the message on the plate could be interpreted as a threat, you could be responsible for the closing of a checkpoint, not to mention the inconvenience you’ve just caused your fellow travelers.

Anything could be considered a threat. Another loophole. The inconvenience I'm causing fellow travelers? Who cares? We are ALL being inconvenienced with TSA, and the impact it's had on the American perception of themselves and their government. It's security theater at best; scarecrow tactics. Plastic sherrifs with teeth and rubber gloves.

4) Whoever is in line behind you will now have to wait even longer to get through the screening process."

Wah. This mentality says "Do you really want the other sheep to get all riled up like that? No, I didn't think so. Be a good little sheep and drink the Kool-Aid and bend over while I cavity search you."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

They hassle real cops, government agents and Secret Service folks. I don't think the TSA goon squad cares about Joe-Citizen.

 

[MJS]

Not much, so this scan is pretty worthless then... dog-and-pony show antics.

Like I always say, damned if you do, damned if you dont. For every measure the TSA takes, there is a negative measure. I simply stated that I dont feel that its violating child porn, unless someone is taking the images and getting off on them. Of course, I'm sure theres some law for adults that its violating too.

Who knows, maybe they should place a bomb sniffing dog near all the screening areas. If the dog hits on someone, that person is detained.

Its hard to say, some of what *I* deem effective someone else may call Racist, or Profiling, or what have you... hey you can't please everyone... but how about instead of making a machine that takes Nudie-pics but has limited value at detection, we FIND a solution that has real detection value? Sounds like Carol was onto something that did the same thing without the Pron aspects... why cant that be used?

If there is something like that, then it should be used.

This part of my comment wasn't directed at you in general but as a statement twords the idea that they wont/cant save images... and I'd wonder why they wouldn't have a mechanism in place save the evidence that created the probable cause for the search in the first place... and for me to believe they wouldn't would be like me believing the Magical Leopluradon would lead the way to candy mountain. Then I would lose my Kidney.

Perhaps, much like the black boxes in airplanes and dash-cams in police cars, which can only be accessed by certain people, some sort of set up like that can be used. While access to someone would still be available, it would be limited. Access the images only if there is an issue. Otherwise, after 30days, the images are erased.

Just tossing out ideas. But, again, if there was some machine that was less intrusive, then it should be used.

 

[Cryozombie]

Just tossing out ideas. But, again, if there was some machine that was less intrusive, then it should be used.

It sounds to me, in this case, and Carol can correct me if Im wrong... it was an issue of who got to the starting line first, and got the TSA's approval.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Umm...just like you'd have the drugs that the dealer had, you'd obviously have the bomb or whatever other device he was using. As for whether or not stuff is saved...well John, I'm not a computer expert, so I was asking a simple question. No harm in that, is there?

No, sir, unfortunately your line of reasoning here is incorrect. When an officer searches a subject and finds drugs on them, they must first have probable cause to search. Now, remember, we're talking about searches of people, not luggage. The rules are different.

In that case, the officer has to articulate his probable cause for the search in the first place. If a TSA officer say that they saw something on a person's body as a result of this scanner, then the question will be what did he see, and prove it. How can he prove it if he doesn't have a captured image of what he saw? People are inherentily distrutful of law enforcement these days, so when a person of a particular ethnicity walks through with an explosive devise, they will just claim racism. And with the fact that easily captured evidence no longer exists, it will give "truth" to that claim.

So, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that these random searches, these machines that can see thru clothing, the body wands, etc. offend you, they're violating your 'civil rights' etc. So please share with us, what you would suggest. What do you feel is the best, most effective, least intrusive way to screen passengers?

Profiling.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Who knows, maybe they should place a bomb sniffing dog near all the screening areas. If the dog hits on someone, that person is detained.

I brought this up in another thread. Dogs can be trained to hit on multiple stimuli (drugs, explosives, prohibited liquids, guns, FEAR) and are more sensitive than the TSA screener's vision as it scans a backscatter image. It really isn't clear to me why we aren't using more dogs.

 

[Carol]

I brought this up in another thread. Dogs can be trained to hit on multiple stimuli (drugs, explosives, prohibited liquids, guns, FEAR) and are more sensitive than the TSA screener's vision as it scans a backscatter image. It really isn't clear to me why we aren't using more dogs.

People of the Muslim faith would have a sharp objection:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/c...o-bomb-sniffing-dogs-on-buses-and-trains.html

Dogs aren't perfect:

http://www.times.com/aponline/2010/01/06/us/AP-US-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs.html

The CT scans offer more effective threat detection, because they can find threats that a TSA officer's eyes can't find: fine wires, radioactive materials, recognizing if a metal is lead, recognizing if a liquid is an explosive vs. a permitted solution (contact lens fluids, cough medicine, etc).

However, regardless of what threat detection system is used, total effectiveness depends on 100.00 percent use in airports around the world. The guy apprehended in Detroit with explosives in his pants did not boar a plane at an American airport. The 9/11 hijackers cleared security at a tiny commuter field (Portland Jetport), not in Boston.