RSS
TSA Agrees To Take The Naked Out Of Naked Scanners
from the nice-of-them dept
After all the controversy concerning the TSA's naked scanners, it appears that someone at the TSA just found out that they could be made to work without showing the naked image of a person's body and realized perhaps it's a good idea to switch to that version of the software. Of course, there are still serious concerns about the radiation issues, but at least something is happening.
I’m looking for policy...
Application Developers Alliance Applauds Schumer Plan To Introduce Patent Legislation
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
I’m looking for research...
Who Are App Developers?
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
I have a business...
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Priorities?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-11-tsa-scans_N.htm
http://thest ir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/117443/radiation_from_tsa_scanners_may
http://health.usnews.com/health -news/family-health/cancer/articles/2010/11/18/radiation-experts-concerned-with-tsa-airport-security -scanners
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Priorities?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Priorities?
Now, it seems they have addressed both issues.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Priorities?
Just trust us. -TSA
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Priorities?
Q: Can the radiation exposure from the CastScope X-ray cause cancer?
A: Exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation not exceeding those from the environment has not been shown to affect human health.
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/castscope.shtm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A little late maybe?
The idea of hiding the "sensitive parts" of those images was decided on last year though, so while the discussion in terms of health (which I agree needs to be examined more carefully) is still going on, the whole privacy thing disappeared pretty quickly when bureaucrats found out how easy it would be to blur out two parts of the body (which is really what we're talking about right?).
Why is the TSA only talking about that now??
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little late maybe?
Judge: Bad TSA! You should have taken public commentary before installing these naked scanners! Public commentary now!
This week...
TSA: Oh look! No more naked! Public won't crucify us when we get around to taking their commentary!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What is really happening here
TSA will give up seeing you naked, but in exchange they still get to grope you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
really? or is it just more smoke and mirrors?
IF they were serious about privacy, then they would build these machines so that they were incapable of storing any images, and deleted the actual image as soon as the computer finished analysis. Instead they still store them and the requirements for new ones include high speed network links.
IF they were serious about our health, then they would decommission the problematic back scatter x-ray machines.
and finally IF they were serious about improving airport security they would focus on things that might actually make us safer (reinforced cockpits, banning obvious weapons, perhaps a few bomb sniffing dogs) instead of abusing the citizenry, shredding our constitutional rights, wasting billions of dollars we can't actually afford, and otherwise making air travel a miserable experience.
(reference to ACLU page on the same topic)
"A further question is whether the raw nude images remain in any way accessible to operators, which would mean one of the privacy threats posed by these machines – the “leakage” of images into the public domain – would remain. The machines are designed to store the images, even if they don’t show them. That is a problem that needs to be addressed, and effective oversight measures need to be in place to prevent abuse.
It is also worth noting that the new software is being installed only in millimeter wave machines, and not in scanners that use backscatter x-ray technology, which constitute about half of the scanners in service. The TSA says it is working on similar software for the backscatter machines. Note that health questions have also been raised concerning the backscatter x-ray machines (which look like a wall that you stand against, as opposed to the millimeter wave machines which are a glass booth you step inside).
( http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/tsa-scanners-start-moving-naked-bo dies-stick-figure )
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A software update doesn't change what the raw image looks like. If the ACLU is correct and the images are stored and possibly kept, the raw image would still show all that it shows.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Likely fail
But that won't stop them. Every passenger's life is sacred, no matter the cost. Even if infinite.
I predict we're going to find out that they are in fact keeping the nude scans so they can reveal them to the operator whenever the scanner "sees" something. Which would fix the false positive bias, but not the important bias -- the ones where the scanner missed a bomb because it looks like a body part. So they'll have to bias towards detecting more rather than less, and be looking at the actual nude image more often. Tee hee.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Likely fail
Whatever they do, I would point to jilocasin's comment: "IF they were serious about improving airport security they would focus on things that might actually make us safer (reinforced cockpits, banning obvious weapons, perhaps a few bomb sniffing dogs)".
No stats problem then! Ok, almost... ;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Likely fail
Good move on their part - who will complain when they are told they were pulled out of line because the machine detected an 'abnormally large protrusion' in their underwear?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Likely fail
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Likely fail
Ah, TSA mantra, however misguided. Fact is, for all the problems, for all the exposure(X-ray & naughty bits), all this crap has stopped nothing, and it seems as though the public has no voice in this due to our electeds' post-911 'spend whatever we want and claim it's for national security' mindset.
And so, here we deservedly are. We let this happen.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Likely fail
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The news of this update seems to confirm that these systems are huge wastes of money. The x-ray images are as effective as a drawing of a stick figure, it's time to get a refund.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to quit
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to quit
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
1. In order to place a model of scanner into service or change it's operating parameters, everyone in the TSA who manages more than 20 people is required to stand in one of them for 20 minutes and have the video of their scan be made available to the public.
2. Anyone responsible for operating a scanner is required to stand it in for 5 minutes each day while the public can see the screen.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The 4 Things That Made Us Safer
1) Re-enforced cockpit doors
2) Pilots, occasionally armed, instructed not to yield the cockpit under any circumstances.
3) Armed undercover agents
4) The fact that passengers will actively attack and force submission of any potential hijacker with a weapon less lethal than a machine gun - even at the passengers' own peril.
With these 4 factors, our risk of hijack from small weapons is almost nil. This means that the TSA on the ground should focus on big metal and explosives...but instead they have focused on your nail clippers, and octogenarian cancer patients breasts.
These 4 factors, combined, increase our flying safety a great deal. Nut juggling and nude scans, not so much.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The 4 Things That Made Us Safer
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The 4 Things That Made Us Safer
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy software only a bandage Radiation the same
http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/Airport-Scanner-privacy-software-a-great-publicity-move.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment