Their full-body imagers are not networked, yet can "send" images? To where? In real-time? What makes them so secure that they "cannot be hacked"? More lies, TSA?

Anyone who thinks these images can't or won't end up on the net...

Well, google some. They're already there. Oops.

And really, how hard would it be to use an external drive to save these images for later porting? Not very.

"cannot be hacked"

That's funny. Even more so from an industry that misses dozens of fake bombs with their flawless security every few years. (not to mention the real ones, like the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber)

Anyone who thinks these images can't or won't end up on the net...
Well, google some. They're already there. Oops.
And really, how hard would it be to use an external drive to save these images for later porting? Not very.
#2 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2010-01-13 04:11 AM

The "scanners" already use some form of networking to send data, so it's obviously intended for some other purpose. Probably to correlate information other than shoe bombs.

No cameras, cell phones or other devices capable of capturing an image are allowed in the room where the image is displayed, according to the TSA. The agency adds that images are deleted from the system after the operator reviews them. And employees who misuse the machines are subject to serious discipline or removal.

It's against the rules?

Well THAT oughta stop 'em then.

Don't really see wot all the hub bub is about here.

Who has an interest in seeing these scans?

S'rsly isn't porn enuff?

XXX isn't good enuff fer some folk?

Now they wanna see under peoples skin too?

Ew.

Be Well.

I recently went through one of these and I didnt mind it at all.

I do have a question about why people are worried that there privacy will be invaded.
They don't take my boarding pass and scan it at the Scanner, so the TSA agents don't now my name or anything else about me (except that I'm a male). They're simply looking for banned items.

Seems like a lot of static over a non-issue.

Commonsense:

It may be okay from your standpoint, but exceptionally attractive women, exceptionally endowed men, and celebs are probably going to have trouble over this sooner or later, probably sooner.

Often, systems are hacked by their operators. The most difficult security hole to plug is the "malicious user."

Same here, is someone seriously so worried that they'll be exposed for smalldong syndrome that they need to sue?

Yep Tom Cruise will freak out because his blue/white blur is going onto the interweb tubes?

I already tried posting naked pictures of myself online but nobody was interested.

These images will/are ending up on the net. Also, if any of you have photoshop, take one of these images and run it through the "negative" filter. Yep, the picture from the scanner (negative) suddenly becomes a "positive" resulting in a naked picture of the subject in question. Not a bad naked picture either. For this reason the Brits have already banned the use of these scanners on children under 18 as it violates a child porn law there. Still think they are no big deal?

Same here, is someone seriously so worried that they'll be exposed for smalldong syndrome that they need to sue?

#10 | Posted by Reagan58

Frank? What say you?

It took me 15 seconds to find this example:

Their full-body imagers are not networked, yet can "send" images? To where? In real-time? What makes them so secure that they "cannot be hacked"? More lies, TSA?

#1 | Posted by redlightrobot

#7 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

How many hours of naked bodies does it take before one becomes so desensitized to it that looking at them becomes a "job" I wonder. :-D

Now they wanna see under peoples skin too?

Ew.

Be Well.

#6 | Posted by dethspud

The TSA has been getting under my skin fer years...

I can see some privacy issues with folks with operations or sexual identity problems such as transvestites and hermaphrodites. I am sure some of these folks don't want this kind of knowledge of their anatomy to be available to the public.

Not a bad naked picture either. For this reason the Brits have already banned the use of these scanners on children under 18 as it violates a child porn law there. Still think they are no big deal?
#13 | Posted by boyracer_x

From ComputerWorld

"Well they should just tank the whole thing then because there's the open window. That very fact has the potential to create a whole new line of children-aged suicide bombers. Some are already armed combatants.... now the little virgins can have some virgins as a reward for blowin' themselves up."

True that. Although all this being said, the underwear bomber was allowed to walk through the airport in Amsterdam with NO passport, NO luggage or carry on and a one way ticket to Detroit (hell it's Dec here and he didn't even have a coat). So I'm still a bit mystified as to how installing scanners in US airports would have prevented this or other similar attacks past, present, and possibly future?

"Their full-body imagers are not networked, yet can "send" images? To where? In real-time? What makes them so secure that they "cannot be hacked"? More lies, TSA?
#1 | Posted by redlightrobot"

"It's called a wire... you "send" voltage through it... going from the scanning device to a remote display. Unless you physically tie into the line between the two, you're not going to be able to intercept anything.
#7 | Posted by COMMONSENSE"

I agree.
#16 | Posted by R0B0T at 2010-01-13 04:21 PM

Until it's proven otherwise they are quite possibly intended to be "remotely administrated" - and could possibly also function in "real-time". Meaning, they might be using a lot of bandwidth, so it's on a private network, but someplace interfaces with communications hardware and eventually a computer. Thus, hackable videos could be obtained.

I trust in the legal administration of these devices as much as black box voting and it's alleged "non-hackability".

Commonsense:

It may be okay from your standpoint, but exceptionally attractive women, exceptionally endowed men, and celebs are probably going to have trouble over this sooner or later, probably sooner.

#8 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-01-13 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

It doesn't take a picture of the person that anyone can use to identify someone.

Why should a few famous people affect the security of us all?

I can see some privacy issues with folks with operations or sexual identity problems such as transvestites and hermaphrodites. I am sure some of these folks don't want this kind of knowledge of their anatomy to be available to the public.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-13 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

How would the information be 'public'?

In fact, my opinion earlier in the Iraq conflict was to employ these backscatter devices at checkpoints. We could have saved a lot of civilian lives and probably captured a few malicious individuals if the military had been at all concerned.

"Commonsense:
It may be okay from your standpoint, but exceptionally attractive women, exceptionally endowed men, and celebs are probably going to have trouble over this sooner or later, probably sooner.
#8 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-01-13 03:57 PM"

It doesn't take a picture of the person that anyone can use to identify someone.
Why should a few famous people affect the security of us all?
#23 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-01-13 04:41 PM

The example in the BBC video shows bones - it's basically an x-ray-like device, penetrating to the bone or any implants such as a pacemaker, hip replacement or even old-school stomach staples. It appears to be "tuned" to show the type of negative skin-depth images seen on Prison Planet and other sites - which is how it appears to be advertised here in the States. These can easily be used for identification - minus hair and clothing. But RFID tags will tell the retailers everything they might need to know otherwise.

So does anybody really believe anything the TSA says?
Remember folks this is the agency that shut down an airport over honey, several agents claimed to get nauseous from the honey, missed explosives hidden in underwear, and took pla-doh from a toddler. Then claims that the system "worked perfectly". If an agent from the TSA told me "The Sun is shining.". I would goes outside and check.

donnerboy, since it's those who don't agree with their (transgends) confusion are the ones they really have issue with, I think those devices are the least of their worries.

Besides that, they have a fantastic immage of the face so you know exactly who it is. What do you see that doesn't look better at the beach?

re #28 but I would think Sniper would be embarrassed if they found out about his strapon.

How would the information be 'public'?

#24 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

The documents show that contrary to the representations of the TSA, whole body imaging devices include the ability to store, record and transfer images of passengers screened at U.S. airports. The device specifications include hard disk storage, USB integration and Ethernet connectivity, all of which raise significant privacy and security concerns, EPIC said.

I think Sniper would be more embarrassed at divulging 'where' the strap-on is.

The pubic would be public as soon as the image is taken.

"How would the information be 'public'?
#24 | Posted by COMMONSENSE"

The documents show that contrary to the representations of the TSA, whole body imaging devices include the ability to store, record and transfer images of passengers screened at U.S. airports. The device specifications include hard disk storage, USB integration and Ethernet connectivity, all of which raise significant privacy and security concerns, EPIC said.
#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-01-13 05:04 PM

TSA undoubtedly utilize a Microsoft platform and drivers, so we're safe after all!

I think the TSA contract deserves further inspection - they obviously lied about the nature of the scanners, and undoubtedly regarding the true purpose of the scanning.

Those of you who support the use of these are saying that you want to live in an America where in order to travel on an airplane everyone needs to submit to a strip search...because that's what this is, nothing less. I'm sure that soon this idea will spread to other venues...travelling by train or boat or going to concerts or entering public buildings.

No big deal, we have to do it to be "safe"...

I'm sorry, that isn't the kind of America I want to live in and I don't think the founders and the generations who came after and fought for our freedoms did either. That's what the 4th amendment was all about...the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. This is unreasonable and not very American in my view.

Don't give up your freedom because of your fear. Strip searches should only be conducted on probable cause, not carte blanche on everyone.

DCINMA - we have to be realistic in the world that we live in... and that world is one that sometimes planes get blown up. Given the choice of having a naked picture (which doesn't sounds likely) end up on the web or having my plane go down?

This is one of those issues that are completely out of touch with reality.... it's the naked human body for cripes sake, time to grow up and be adults already!

half the celebs are bathing at topless beaches in various destinations around the globe... who cares!

and yes there is enough porn out there to satisfy most perversions already!

Those of you who support the use of these are saying that you want to live in an America where in order to travel on an airplane everyone needs to submit to a strip search...because that's what this is, nothing less. I'm sure that soon this idea will spread to other venues...travelling by train or boat or going to concerts or entering public buildings.
No big deal, we have to do it to be "safe"...
I'm sorry, that isn't the kind of America I want to live in and I don't think the founders and the generations who came after and fought for our freedoms did either. That's what the 4th amendment was all about...the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. This is unreasonable and not very American in my view.
Don't give up your freedom because of your fear. Strip searches should only be conducted on probable cause, not carte blanche on everyone.
#35 | Posted by DCinMA at 2010-01-13 06:08 PM

[sarcasm]Oh, go hang up your powdered wig already - it's a Microsoft exploitative world now! What will happen to our secret government contracting if we can't spend trillions on unknowable technologies before the Russians implement them?! Think of the economic terrorism incentives before you pooh-pooh all of these grand "preventative measures".

For one thing - a spectroscopic scan can easily indicate your bodily fluids excretion content, but you don't see that in use for cocaine use on our Congresspeoples. You also don't see harmonic devices keeping the masses in a peaceful state of mind while their airplane descends into the Atlantic ocean. We need terrorism to enhance our technological advances if anything else. TSA proves this.[/sarcasm]

I want to annouce that I am starting a company to make fake penis's for airport photography. After you slip throught the gates (and get the phone numbers of a few observers), you can eat it....because it's made of 100% wisconsin brat.

"I want to annouce(sic) that I am starting a company to make fake penis's for airport photography. "

Make them out of PETN and you'll make your fortune.

Make them out of PETN and you'll make your fortune.

#39 | Posted by Zatoichi

Right, like I'm gonna strap some explosives to my junk.

I just checked a list of 'ways that i would like to off myself', and that one was dead last. But it was almost tied with jumping into the jaws of one of those tree cutting machines.

So what about all this technology, huh? Can you imagine, the airport can actually take a picture as well as save it too. sheee-yit! next you'll try to tell me that it can be sent digitally. everyone knows that will never happen.

I prefer flying solo.
Back when I flew jumpers a streak had to be flown naked.
The airlines suck.

Those are facts.

-----------

"Facts are stupid things."
~Reagan

TSA might obviously scanning for non-human entities. That's a potential and probable explanation as to why the extreme layers of deceit. I'd like to know more about the individuals operating the device and if it's already "networked" at that moment. If so, even the "operator" might not be seeing the factual data it's gleaning. I believe it's intended to function remotely administrated and streaming it's data in real-time.

The celebrities and elites don't go through TSA screening anyway. They have private jets and special doors in the airports. So that's a non issue. What this really about is drug screening as well as weapon screening. The machines can now see the difference between cloth, skin and other chemicals like drugs and explosives. It drives the cost of legal drugs up.

I sure wouldn't want the job screening all these fat arsed Americans. Imagine the nightmares after a few months of looking at all that cellulose and silicone.

The celebrities and elites don't go through TSA screening anyway. They have private jets and special doors in the airports. So that's a non issue. What this really about is drug screening as well as weapon screening. The machines can now see the difference between cloth, skin and other chemicals like drugs and explosives. It drives the cost of legal drugs up.
I sure wouldn't want the job screening all these fat arsed Americans. Imagine the nightmares after a few months of looking at all that cellulose and silicone.
#43 | Posted by RingMaster at 2010-01-13 09:20 PM

Think of the coffee table book revenue! What might be fun is to make it 3D or a popup book.

Maybe TSA can animate modesty bar clothing or give a choice of three Christ-certified nudity settings - neutered, barbiedoll or genderless.

But you are right - they can make their scanner show one drug bright orange with green spots and make another purple with flashing blue stripes. I wonder if false-positives are also part of the "TSA assurance of security"? I highly doubt the scanners are communicating one-way only. If I can photoshop my neighbor as a stunt cyclist launching an American flag over Giza with Darius Rucker in his pink Burger King cowboy outfit flying over a giant one-armed pirate slash fashion photographer grafted into Pixars Tow-mater I imagine many others might as well. Utilizing these "scanners" it's now possible to entirely render the likeness of someone with entirely fictitious information and thus re-invent that data in any way, shape or explosive form. Who's authorized to investigate the TSA? "Homeland Security"?

"It's called a wire... you "send" voltage through it... going from the scanning device to a remote display. Unless you physically tie into the line between the two, you're not going to be able to intercept anything.
Posted by R0B0T"

Until it's proven otherwise they are quite possibly intended to be "remotely administrated" - and could possibly also function in "real-time". Meaning, they might be using a lot of bandwidth, so it's on a private network, but someplace interfaces with communications hardware and eventually a computer. Thus, hackable videos could be obtained.
Posted by redlightrobot

These can easily be used for identification - minus hair and clothing. But RFID tags will tell the retailers everything they might need to know otherwise.
#26 | Posted by redlightrobot
TSA might obviously scanning for non-human entities. That's a potential and probable explanation as to why the extreme layers of deceit. I'd like to know more about the individuals operating the device and if it's already "networked" at that moment. If so, even the "operator" might not be seeing the factual data it's gleaning. I believe it's intended to function remotely administrated and streaming it's data in real-time.
#42 | Posted by redlightrobot

Will these images detect a pound of explosives crammed up the ass of one of these morons? Excuse me, martyrs; no offense to our Islamic-fundamentalist friends. What if they have other, legal things packed in their asses? Will they be forced to remove them before boarding the plane or will they be allowed to proceed? What about their right to pack such non-contraband items in any legal manner they see fit? Will I have to stand in line behind someone who is forced to remove a vibrating butt-plug?

What in the world? Your assumptions are off the hook and ya might want to consider straighten up your tech jargon chief. Ever hear of closed circuit TV? This would be nearly the same thing as a surveillance monitor connected to a VCR (we've moved from the analog to a more digital age) except you'll be naked. The reason you'll want the capabilities to store the images is if you don't provide the proof, the lawyers defending the terrorist suspects can create doubt. There is no mention of these scanners, nor the monitoring stations being linked to one another or connected to the internet where data could be intercepted. Wireless transmissions are surely out of the question. The only argument you can make here is the fact that your "privates" won't be as private to those in the room looking at the scans.

Imo you are slightly behind the times. We commonly utilize "cellular" telephones now - they operate nearly everywhere in America, prolly most other nations too and generally have cameras among other application/hardware combinations. GPS phones can function with even less requirements. To assume that these body scanning devices are "not capable of networking" is ignoring what they are comprised of - ethernet capability, hard drive, USB port and probably wireless "card". Are you familiar with networking? You can purchase satellite control cards since the late 90's. They also make cards that control stitch-making and others can activate any powered devices in your household. Some are initiated with "clap-power", while you are bundled-up in your snuggy on the couch.

"These can easily be used for identification - minus hair and clothing. But RFID tags will tell the retailers everything they might need to know otherwise.
#26 | Posted by redlightrobot"

"TSA might obviously scanning for non-human entities. That's a potential and probable explanation as to why the extreme layers of deceit. I'd like to know more about the individuals operating the device and if it's already "networked" at that moment. If so, even the "operator" might not be seeing the factual data it's gleaning. I believe it's intended to function remotely administrated and streaming it's data in real-time.
#42 | Posted by redlightrobot"

Wow man. Are you claiming the TSA's real agenda is looking for extraterrestrials who might want to take a jet somewhere or is it cataloging the world population's likes and dislikes that got ya freaking out? If the later, I would think examining the contents of the luggage being x-rayed can create a far better profile than the size of one's cock. I don't get where RFID fits in. Please don't start in on tracking chips and all that.
#45 | Posted by R0B0T at 2010-01-14 10:50 AM

You might not realize this but the black box voting tabulation servers are remotely accessible via wireless laptop. If you were outside the voting station in your car with a laptop it's entirely hackable. Have you ever heard of warchalking or cantennas? An entire generation of laptop users have invented a real-world designation system for these open nodes.

Also, I wrote "non-human" meaning just that. Make of it what you will - I don't particularly care to distinguish what you can and cannot imagine, let alone understand as a distinct possibility. No actual offense intended, I'm just more skeptical of everything and I do "believe" - for better or worse. To balance this - none of my personal friends are interested in the least, which does make me continually reconsider my views. However, facts are fact and what we care to accept never has any bearing on that.

What makes you presume these scanners don't also read RFID data? It would be so easy! Besides, TSA have lied regarding the general nature of the threat involved and the nature of these devices - perhaps that's just the tip of the information iceberg?

Will these images detect a pound of explosives crammed up the ass of one of these morons? Excuse me, martyrs; no offense to our Islamic-fundamentalist friends. What if they have other, legal things packed in their asses? Will they be forced to remove them before boarding the plane or will they be allowed to proceed? What about their right to pack such non-contraband items in any legal manner they see fit? Will I have to stand in line behind someone who is forced to remove a vibrating butt-plug?
#46 | Posted by DishonestAbe at 2010-01-14 12:26 PM

If these were utilized in a region where that could prove useful to determine - say, Iraq - it might be easier to identify their factual life-saving capabilities. Because that has not occurred we cannot know for certain what TSA are actually looking for. Remember - shampoos and baby formula are verboten without the slightest evidence of their "misuse".

I hope you all realize what this is all leading to. Flights will eventually be segregated into male and female sections where everyone will be stripped, offered a disposable diaper and shackled to their seats for the entire flight.

I suppose it is only a matter of time before one handed web surfers are downloading Jpegs of their favorite Celebrity Body Scan.

Celebrity Body Scan.

#51 | Posted by kanrei

I see what you mean.....I got dibs on Marisa Torme!

sorry bout that link, it doesn't seem to work