<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;rapiscan&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:37:48 PST</pubDate>
<title>TSA Dumps Rapiscan Naked Airport Scanners After Failure To Make Them 'Less Revealing'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of folks have noted the ridiculousness of the "Rapiscan" name used by OSI Systems for its x-ray airport security naked scanner -- one of the two popular "new" style scanners used at airports.  Over the last few months, I've noticed that I've been seeing fewer and fewer of the Rapiscan machines, and airports that used to have them have been replacing them with the L3 "millimeter-wave" scanners, which have all been outfitted with upgrades so that there's no more "naked" in the naked scanning (and so that operators no longer have to wait for the TSA agent hidden in a dark room with your naked images to give them the "all clear.")  Now it turns out that the TSA <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/naked-image-scanners-to-be-removed-from-u-s-airports.html" target="_blank">has ended its contract with OSI</a> and all of the remaining Rapiscan machines will be removed from airports.  The main reason is that -- despite having been requested to quite some time ago, OSI failed to make a version of their naked scanner without the nakedness.  While L3 was able to do that pretty quickly, apparently it was way too difficult to take the "naked" out of the Rapiscan.
<br /><br />
The TSA insists that the decision to dump the Rapiscan has nothing to do with the recent reports and ongoing investigation into the claims that OSI <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/17082521070/naked-scanner-maker-accused-manipulating-tests-to-make-scans-look-less-invasive.shtml">manipulated tests</a> of the Rapiscan machine to pretend that it didn't violate travelers' privacy as much as it did.  However, I'm sure that didn't help OSI.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08091321724/tsa-dumps-rapiscan-naked-airport-scanners-after-failure-to-make-them-less-revealing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>say-wha...?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130118/08091321724</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:35:56 PST</pubDate>
<title>Naked Scanner Maker Accused Of Manipulating Tests To Make Scans Look Less Invasive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/17082521070/naked-scanner-maker-accused-manipulating-tests-to-make-scans-look-less-invasive.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/17082521070/naked-scanner-maker-accused-manipulating-tests-to-make-scans-look-less-invasive.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We'd heard a number of reports about how the TSA was already either <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110720/15211715177/tsa-agrees-to-take-naked-out-naked-scanners.shtml">retrofitting</a> the various naked scanners or moving on to less privacy invasive versions, but there were two interesting points to come out some Congressional hearings on the devices yesterday.  First, apparently there is some concern that the makers of the Rapiscan machine (and, yes, it still amazes me that anyone thought that was a good name), OSI Systems, may have <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/tsa-vendor-denies-faking-test-of-body-imaging-software.html" target="_blank">"manipulated" tests</a> in order to claim that the machines did not invade travelers' privacy:
<blockquote><i>
The company &#8220;may have attempted to defraud the government by knowingly manipulating an operational test,&#8221; Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Transportation Security Subcommittee, said in a letter to Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole Nov. 13. Rogers said his committee received a tip about the faked tests. 
</i></blockquote>
OSI, of course, is denying it, but this is the same company that also apparently ran into problems last year when maintenance reports suggested radiation levels <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110314/01280213485/maintenance-report-shows-radiation-levels-some-tsa-scanners-10-times-higher-than-promised.shtml">10 times as high</a> as promised.
<br /><br />
The other bit of news?  The TSA has <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2012/11/15/tsa-bodyscanners/1706811/" target="_blank">admitted that it has simply put a bunch of these machines in storage</a> -- 91 machines, worth $14 million -- because of related privacy concerns.
<br /><br />
While it's a <i>good</i> thing that privacy violating machines aren't being used, it raises <i>serious</i> questions about why they were purchased and put into use in the first place -- and done so without ever <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120912/07362920359/tsa-still-not-taking-comments-naked-scanners-so-public-interest-group-does-it-them.shtml">taking comment</a> from the public, as is required under law.  Perhaps if they had actually done that, they would have avoided wasting so much taxpayer money on machines that violate everyone's privacy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/17082521070/naked-scanner-maker-accused-manipulating-tests-to-make-scans-look-less-invasive.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/17082521070/naked-scanner-maker-accused-manipulating-tests-to-make-scans-look-less-invasive.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/17082521070/naked-scanner-maker-accused-manipulating-tests-to-make-scans-look-less-invasive.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-that-was-useful</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121115/17082521070</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>