Can Imaging Technologies Save Us From Terrorists? 480
itwbennett writes "In the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack, full body scanning technologies such as millimeter wave and backscatter are regaining popularity, writes blogger Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in a recent post. But, he asks, do they really work? The TSA seems to think so. It has just issued a contract to purchase more millimeter wave scanners from L3 Communications. Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary, told the New York Times that if these scanners had been in place, they would have caught the would-be bomber. Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th."
... but not if (Score:5, Insightful)
He stuck them up his bum.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Say "Hello" to body cavity probes at the gate . . .
Re: (Score:2)
They've already used this technique successfully to kill someone. Used a cell phone to detonate.
Re:... but not if (Score:4, Informative)
ITYM "unsuccessfully, killing only the bomber".
It's like jumping on your own hand grenade.
(Must of made a horrible mess though).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/21/bum_bombing/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are correct. I was mistaken. My memory only gets worse with age.
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/09/26/internal-bomb-suicide-bomber-hid-explosives-inside-his-body/ [nationalterroralert.com]
It's interesting to me that it created a large crater under the terrorist but failed to kill the target. I'm guessing the rib cage shaped the charge downwards. Talk about killer farts.
Re: (Score:2)
Takes the activity of lighting your farts to a new level.
Re:... but not if (Score:5, Insightful)
Or blew them up in the terminal before departure. What about a car bomb in Times Square? If airlines are immune to bombing, people will bomb elsewhere. Terrorism cannot be fought at this end.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or blew them up in the terminal before departure. What about a car bomb in Times Square? If airlines are immune to bombing, people will bomb elsewhere. Terrorism cannot be fought at this end.
Exactly. Terrorists have clearly given up on the "hijack an airplane and use it as a giant missile" tactic since it won't work anymore, and are settling for trying to kill a plane full of people.
Well gee, if killing people is the main goal, look at all those folks piled up in front of the rigorous security checkpoint..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they wanted to do damage hit a few double-decker tour buses. The cost to the tourism industry would far outweigh w/e planes cost. Doubled up with the shit you have to go through to get to the US anyways less and less people would bother. Plus there are as many people in a mid sized plane as there are in a bus... (50~60people).
I suppose it makes less of an ant
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The bomb was smallish. Thanks to the internet we know that an object the size of a grenade will fit with some work, and with a friction igniter (German potato masher and other grenades had these) iit could be detonated by a pull string.
Booty bomb:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090902_aqap_paradigm_shifts_and_lessons_learned [stratfor.com]
Classic pull fuse:
http://www.inert-ord.net/gerimp/eggs/41204.jpg [inert-ord.net]
Omit all metal, make a plastic case that looks like a convincing turd, and a considerable amount of ordnance could be car
wha (Score:4, Interesting)
aren't these the scanners known to have health risks and/or not work? [cnet.com]
Re:wha (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but 2010 is election year here in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
What a coinkidink! [wikipedia.org] Lucky us, we'll get to see new idiots in Parliament AND Congress! What could possibly go wrong?
Re:wha (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is that the person in question did not depart from either a UK or a US airport. Schiphol Arirport already had 15 such scanners and both the Airport's management and the Dutch Interior Minister announced yesterday they intend to get 60 more this year.
Also it needs to be remembered that any kind of "screening" can be defeated by an "inside man". At least two other passengers noticed the terrorist in the company of an unknown man who claimed the Nigerian was from Sudan and had no passport. Such strange behaviour should at least have warrented checking with the flight crew, if not having both people arrested. Instead the witnesses say that the ticket agent refered them to a manager.
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Radiation in general isn't the problem. There's some evidence that millimeter wave radiation in particular can un-zip DNA, even at its low energy, due to resonant effects.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/ [technologyreview.com]
Now it's not yet clear *how* damaging regular exposure to a millimeter wave scan would be -- millimeter waves already exist in the natural environment and haven't killed us all yet -- so it's entirely possible that there is no real danger. But I'd like to see some of the billions spent on these machines used to verify that before we get too far along.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless your joking, in which case *whoosh*, I think that's exactly the point. Your trading radiation that if those numbers are correct is far less harmful then the actual plane trip itself will be to try to avoid a bomb blowing up in the plane which will be clearly much more harmful then the radiation from the machine. If you can't handle the health risks of 2 minutes at cruising altitude then you shouldn't go through security and board a public airplane in the first place as you'll be stranded away from health professionals.
I think his point was that the reasonableness of the suggestion hinges on acceptance that P(Scanner Radiation Harm) < P(Boom), i.e. it's not the amount of damage, but the likelihood, and given the track record of the TSA/DHS knobs, his skepticism is warranted.
Re:wha (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a better link to information on the damage to DNA from Terahertz scanners [technologyreview.com]. It was covered in Slashdot earlier [slashdot.org], don't know why it is not a related story.
Quoting the earlier story:
"Now a team led by Los Alamos National Labs thinks it knows why. They say that although the forces that terahertz waves exert on double-stranded DNA are tiny, in certain circumstances resonant effects can unzip the DNA strands, tearing them apart. This creates bubbles in the strands that can significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. With terahertz scanners already appearing in airports and hospitals, the question that now urgently needs answering is what level of exposure is safe."
yeah, and? (Score:5, Funny)
Ben Wallace, the Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, disagrees, saying that the technologies can't detect the kind of low-density explosive that the would-be terrorist tried to use on December 25th."
Since when has a technology that doesn't work deterred the US from using it anyway? :(
Re: (Score:2)
If it works or not is a minor detail. It creates more security theatre, is incredibly invasive, and no doubt costs a fortune.
Those are the three things the security bureaucracy cares about. Actual security is kind of a side thing that's nice if you achieve it.
Re:yeah, and? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well - sounds better than the magic wand [nytimes.com] the Iraqis are using.
Even so - the millimeter wave approach would probably identify any wiring or fuses that are secondary to the explosives in the crotch. In the end though, the only real solution is full body X-ray scans.
Maybe they can offer the option to send the scan to your Doctor's office if requested. Probably catch all sorts of undiagnosed medical problems for every person who gets on a plane. You're probably going to get a similar dose on a high altitude flight anyway...
The idea of having a huge database of full body x-ray scans could be a medical researchers dream. I'd start with making a visual recognition system for tumours, pneumonia, spinal issues - the results could be pretty awesome.
X-ray densities just need to be kept really low, and with modern digital detectors, it's likely to be easily achieved.
Just wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Informative)
As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity. 80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm^3. There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules..
So you will still need to be searched, even if you are travelling in the nude. But at least the searches would take less time.
Re:Just wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as these scanners are deployed terrorists will simply start to carry the explosives in an internal cavity. 80g of explosives - the amount used on the 25th - only has a volume of 36x36x36 mm^3. There are plenty of places where this could be hidden - just look at the drug mules..
So you will still need to be searched, even if you are travelling in the nude. But at least the searches would take less time.
Do they inspect false limbs? If you're blowing yourself up for Allah anyway, why not give up your leg a few months early? Martyrdom candidate gets leg amputated below knee, heals up, is fitted with prosthetic. Interior of prosthetic is filled with explosive and is completely sealed. Cell phone is the wireless detonator for the bomb. Take seat in plane, wait until cruising altitude is reached so breaching the pressure vessel will cause maximum damage, detonate leg. How do you check for that? And what if the guy has a wheelchair. That's chock full of metal. What if the tubes that make it up were packed and sealed with plastique?
I never understood the appeal of suicide bombings but I guess it makes things simpler on the operational end. There's the old saying about making the hit is easy, getting out alive is the hard part. A shoulder-fired SAM is hard to buy, hard to smuggle, and even if you blow up the plane, now there's an operative on the ground trying to evade the cops. The suicide bomber will be dead unless the bomb fails, nobody to interrogate, much harder to find his support people. But if bombs are simpler than missiles, why not just do what the Libyans did with Pan-Am 103 and check luggage with the bomb in it, then not get on the plane? Even if the bomb is caught in scanning, your guy presumably used a false ID and won't be caught.
The only thing that's really encouraging throughout all of this is that the terrorists don't appear to be really smart. This country is full of gaping vulnerabilities that would be frightfully easy to exploit but aren't just because there aren't as many terrorists out there as we think and they don't have the Lex Luthor plotting skills we give them credit for. Just look at our power grid. Terrorists knocking down a few long-haul towers could make the country go crazier than 9-11. Even if they didn't manage to replicate that giant New York blackout from a few years back, just imagine the expense of patrolling all the lines now, especially through remote areas. It would cost a fortune. How difficult would it be to get a dozen crews modeled after the DC Snipers running around the country? We'd lose our minds. But they aren't doing this, are they?
Re:Just wait... (Score:4, Informative)
I've read a newspaper article on just this - the controversy over installing better 3D imaging scanners to "catch more terrorists" (though that one was dealing specifically with Canada). There was an interesting take on the problem there offered by an Israeli airport security expert.
What he said was that, basically, extreme tech measures are still not good enough to battle the really creative terrorists, and, broadly speaking, only make things worse because they slow down processing, resulting in large numbers of people accumulating before security checkpoints. Which means that a would-be terrorist suicide bomber doesn't need to get to the plane anymore - if he detonates an explosive in the crowd, it's likely to have a very damaging effect already; and, since he didn't have to go through any screening yet, he can easily get a much more powerful explosive device that what he could otherwise smuggle on-board. In other words, instead of a theoretical minor increase in security and safety, we get a very real decrease!
He went on to explain that in Israel, they instead require all passengers to go through a brief interview (which, he claims, is faster with trained personnel than a proper - that is, actually able to thwart most attempts to conceal explosives - device scan), check the person's background file (collected beforehand), and look for certain cues (speech irregularities, facial expressions, and other similar signs) of instability when relevant topics are touched. He further claims that this has an extremely high detection rate for real threats, and a very marginal false positive rate, so a full scan using advanced imaging machinery has to be done on very few people in practice. In particular, from the description of the recent terrorist's behavior in the airport during departure, he is confident that the terrorist wouldn't have gotten past security in any Israeli airport.
Considering how Israelis generally have much more of a headache with terrorism, and their extremely good success rate at preventing it specifically on their airline and in their airports (there was precisely one successful hijacking of El Al airplane, for example), I would definitely trust them on this matter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good idea. Actually, it would be a better idea if everybody refused to fly until the airlines recognised that their customers deserve a modicum of respect. The whole business of flying anywhere has become so universally unpleasant, there's no point bothering any more, and it's high time the airlines realised that.
Re:Just wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a problem. Take a cruise ship. Loads of fun, great food, gambling, accommodations from basic to extreme luxury, swimming, tennis, dancing... I haven't been on a plane in decades and I've been to every continent except Antarctica in that time. You'd be surprised how reasonable the prices are, too, presuming you don't absolutely have to get that luxury suite. Though I highly recommend them. :)
Re: (Score:2)
If that happens, I predict Hooters Air will become hugely successful. No pun intended.
Addendum (Score:4, Funny)
If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models who become nymphomaniacs when they see a slightly rotund computer nerd.
There, fixed it for you.
I think... (Score:2, Insightful)
If the photography, lighting, and touch-up are removed and the swimsuit models drop from a "10" to a "7", most slashdotters would still be on board, literally.
Had DHS not been so secretive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Had DHS not been so secretive about their processes and people actually bothered to listened when the guy's father walked into the US embassy and said "I think my son is a terrorist" and actually looked into the matter it wouldn't have happened.
Right now I don't think I know if anybody without an TS-SCI clearance actually knows how to get on of off the list.
On a related note. . . (Score:5, Informative)
New scanners break child porn laws [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Terrorist will just use children (Score:4, Insightful)
because child porn laws are already being considered with these new machines, in the UK I believe no one under 18 can be scanned with one.
So, lets just hand them our playbook again. Instead of looking for terrorist we are looking to naughty bits.
We are nearly suicidal in our attempts to not offend anyone. What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?
Re:Terrorist will just use children (Score:5, Insightful)
Every ideological movement needs an enemy.
The West is their enemy. We could pull out entirely right now and we'd still be the Great Satan for generations and generations. (For example, North Korea wants their citizens to believe they are still at war with the U.S. and as such they need to continually endure 'wartime' hardships to continue the glorious fight.)
They are also still happily killing themselves (no western involvement) over things that happened over 500 years or more ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize your statement could be reversed to apply to the "War on Terror", do you?
Our Great Satan would be Bin Laden, and depending on the agenda of Western governments, our enemy could be Iran/Irak/Pakistan/Afghanistan/Yemen/Whatever....
Plus, our governments get to screw us on privacy because we're "at war".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've skimmed most of your post because it's redundant. You're terrified of scarrrrry muslims. I get it.
The only two ways to avoid confrontation with Islam is to 1) convert to it, or 2) submit to its rule, if your religion is on the "permitted list", as established by a certain precedent involving Muhammad himself.
If this is what you actually believe is the reality, what are you going to do about it? Kill all suspected muslims? Or prosecute those who commit terrorism as criminals? Or just randomly kill muslims and hope they were criminals?
If you payed attention, the speaker in the first part of the video urges to "remember the lesson of Theo van Gogh... remember the lesson of the Jews of Khaybar". The first reference doesn't need an explanation, but the second one specifically refers to the event from which the very Islamic concept of "dhimmi" - the subjugated non-Muslim - comes.
I pay attention to extremists, but I'm not scared by them. They do not represent the majority of any population, unless that population is under extreme stress and can use those fa
Re:Terrorist will just use children (Score:5, Insightful)
You are exactly right. Before 9/11 and before Iraq and Afghanistan I remember reading a post titled "Why do people hate Americans?" Hundreds chimed in, with as much passion as today's critics, but with different complaints. The biggest complaint, by far, was that Americans call themselves Americans (how arrogant) instead of USians. Next on the list was how we didn't finish the first Gulf War and let our allies be murdered by Saddam. People will hate Americans and America as long as we shall live.
Re:Terrorist will just use children (Score:5, Insightful)
You are exactly right. Before 9/11 and before Iraq and Afghanistan I remember reading a post titled "Why do people hate Americans?" Hundreds chimed in, with as much passion as today's critics, but with different complaints. The biggest complaint, by far, was that Americans call themselves Americans (how arrogant) instead of USians. Next on the list was how we didn't finish the first Gulf War and let our allies be murdered by Saddam. People will hate Americans and America as long as we shall live.
Your post in itself is an example of why people hate Americans.
You create a straw man saying that the prime reason that people hate Americans is that they don't call themselves USians. Wtf? Do you really think Palestinians give a shit what you call yourself when your country supplies the weapons that kill members of their family?
Do you think the Northern Irish who endured decades of violence while Americans supplied money and arms to the IRA hate them because of anything to do with the first gulf war?
Wilful ignorance like you are showing is a real reason people hate Americans.
no it can't save us (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only was the initial attack a success beyond all reasonable expectation, the USA's own response has dealt even more significant damage.
To begin with, the fall of the towers to a pair of airliners made for an extremely effective, dramatic and memorable piece of terrorism. Around 3,000 US citizens died in that attack. It caused somewhere in the region of a hundred billion dollars worth of imm
The scanners were already in place (Score:2)
Also, having them in place in US airports won't scan someone flying in from Timbuktu, now would they?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they plan to forbid planes from destinations where passengers weren't scanned before entering the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe drive to another country, then fly.
terrorist not much of a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless they have nukes or something, terrorists are not much of a threat to the country. Recognize that governments never assume an actual responsibility to say protect you from crime. So what is happening here?
I suggest we are having a wave of terrorism to change the subject from the collapse of copenhagen. Some psych warfare.
Here is something to think about. There is a lot of talk about Yemen. So they talk about the underware bomber and Yemen. But the obvious factoid that he was recruited in Londoni
Health Care Model (Score:2)
Expensive new imaging devices generate fees. Tax dollars FTW!
Kiddie Porn Laws Defeat Scanners (Score:5, Interesting)
There was an article [guardian.co.uk] that mentioned that use of these scanners violated GB laws on child porn. So now you have kids (up to 17) - very impressionable and angsty kids - that will become the target of recruitment by terrorist organizations. Epic FAIL.
What we need to do now is to accept that airline travel is not safe, and can never be safe. Everything in life that has the best rewards also has the greatest risks. Why can't we just factor risk into airline travel for the reward of being a timezone away in an hour? I would still fly. And those who wouldn't would push for a transcontinental high-speed train (Mag-Lev?) which would have a lower risk/reward, but just as cost effective.
People are terrible at understanding risk (Score:5, Insightful)
It was not a "failed" attack. (Score:5, Insightful)
It promoted "terror". It's making the enemy (us) scramble, expend resources and showed the jihadies that the enemy (us) is still vulnerable.
That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.
Re:It was not a "failed" attack. (Score:5, Funny)
That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial
Because that stuff is already in Detroit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn. I wish you were not so cowardly anon, that was a good joke and could have gotten you some karma.
Re:It was not a "failed" attack. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing is more hilarious than the truth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A free society will always be vulnerable in some way. This didn't prove anything except that the American people will need to give up more freedom if they want to feel safer. I don't, but I guess I'm not the one the terrorists are trying to influence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That there were no dead bodies or a mile-wide debris trail in downtown Detroit is trivial -- because there COULD have been.
Could there? Has this actually been looked at? Because this guy wasn't carrying that much explosive. It may be that the worst case is a few people die and the cabin decompresses.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Link, please? The last update I heard on this topic was that the TSA (or some other three-letter agency) ran a test and discovered it was enough to blow a hole in the side of the plane, which would result in decompression, yes, but wouldn't necessarily bring down the plane.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"because there COULD have been."
No, because people believe there could have been.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that will save us from terrorists is to refuse to be terrorized. When we go through all this bullshit, giving up our liberties, conviniences, travel, the terrorists win.
It's just more security theater. There are a whole lot of ways to kill large numbers of people, and no way to protect all of them.
Why are you so afraid of terrorists when only 3,000 people have died from terrorism in the US this century, while there are five times as many Americans murdered every single year [fbi.gov] in non-terrorist murders?
Murder is murder, why should political murder scare you more than some thug doing a drive-by shooting?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a just dead-body-numbers game. Of those "5 times as many Amercians" murdered, how much capital did they take out of the US and world economy? In a single day, 20 some odd yahoos cost the US economy several hundred billions of dollars. This doesn't include Afghanistan and Iraq. And
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a single day, 20 some odd yahoos cost the US economy several hundred billions of dollars. This doesn't include Afghanistan and Iraq. And the fall of global markets after 911?
You're making an argument for spreading out operations and using telepresence to connect the movers and shakers from the golf courses of their choice. Possibly you're making an argument for capping the size of aircraft (the market seems to be doing that on it's own though. Look at the popularity of SouthWest and the orders for the Dreamliner that held fast despite slipping deadlines compared to the A380)
You have not made a valid argument for harassing everyone and making travel difficult and slower.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Liberals have hate crimes, conservatives have terrorists. They're essentially the same thing - a crime thought to be worse due to the motive.
IMHO, what does distinguish these crimes from the garden variety is if the attack was sponsored by a larger organization (whether a homegrown militia or Al Qaeda), since that means further attacks are likely in the offing.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Janet Napolitano (inadvertently) got it right when she said immediately after the event that "the system worked". That is, if by system she meant "relying on the post-9/11 understanding of passengers to use force to subdue suspected terrorists". You can't stop everyone from getting through, and you don't even need to since the people on the plane know that their lives are on the line. They'll take care of the problem much more effectively than some government agency chock full of ne'er-do-wells and morons.
For heavens sake, (Score:2)
They are another layer (Score:5, Interesting)
The short answer is a qualified YES. All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists. Specifically, those individuals carrying dangerous/unknown objects or materials outside their body, whether integrated with their clothes or simply bound to their body. The proof is in the images. I will provide examples if asked.
As far as safety concerns, the active millimeter-wave systems are safer than your cell phone or laptop wifi. The x-ray backscatter systems give you a dose of radiation that is far less than what you receive while flying over a few states at 39,000'.
The ultimate issue for most people is privacy. I won't get into that here; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side. I will answer any questions now, so please respond.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll bite -- I'm asking. Will you please provide a link to the images to support your assertion?
My main concern is that we're spending god-awful amounts of cash and wasted effort using these systems to detect items which are detectable via other, cheaper, less invasive, means.
Bonus points if you explain each of the images with that in mind -- how did the mm-wave/THz scanner detect something indetectable by other means?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hi, thanks for biting. Here [nationalgeographic.com] is a passive broadband millimeter-wave/terahertz (100-2000 GHz) image of a subject with two items beneath several layers of clothing. One is a metal gun, and you're right, a magnetometer would detect that easily.
The object on the left, however, is a very thin piece of foam. Its overall weight is much less than the 3 oz of PETN the underpants bomber had. It is thin for obvious reasons that I do not need to explain here.
By the way, low vapor pressure of explosives is a serious
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The N
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not IR... IR cannot penetrate clothing, so it is not great for this application; here's the paper you want to read [aip.org]. As I said, the image in the NG article is in the approximately 100-2000 GHz range, and it's passive.
And yes, everyone is confused about the sensor modalities. There are three. 1) Active narrowband millimeter-wave. Basically imaging radar. 2) Passive broadband millimeter-wave/terahertz. 3) X-ray backscatter. (also active of course, but a stretch to be called
Please (Score:3, Insightful)
Imaging technologies are in use, and have been for some time. So it's a perfectly reasonable request. Especially in light of the OP's claim that "The short answer is a qualified YES. All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists."
As for being deterrents, yes, they are. I won't support an industry that cares so little for my liberties, not to mention which encourages acting like a bunch of craven cowards. So I never fly.
As far as efficacy in stopping an infinitesimal number of these
Re:They are another layer (Score:5, Interesting)
The ultimate issue for most people is privacy. I won't get into that here; I just know the phenomenology and implementation side. I will answer any questions now, so please respond.
Safety interlock design -- is the operator capable of increasing the radiation dosage, and if so what interlocks are present to prevent the person being scanned from being exposed multiple times or at a higher level than intended? The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident, but this is an airport scanner, not a medical scanner. Are the safety standards and review process comparable? How tamper-evident is the system, and what are the possible failure modes that could endanger the operator or person being scanned? Is there a sound or visual indicator the person being scanned can hear to indicate when it is in-use or when it is being activated multiple times?
I have read these scanners are capable of covertly scanning large crowds in real-time. That implies a steady-state emission -- while a single use of this device may be quite low, what are the risks to continual exposure over, say, a 45 minute timeframe? What about frequent travelers -- at what point are the safety margins compromised?
There are statements that the device will not be enabled for the transmission/storage of images -- but while those devices may be shipped with that disabled by default, it makes no sense from an employee-training perspective not to have records and auditing in place. Is it safe to assume this is just hyperbole to reassure people and the machines can be easily configured to do this?
Why millimeter wave over other frequencies in the RF spectrum? Is this just a shortcut from a computational standpoint, or is there an advantage here that can only be realized by this technology? Why not use IR scanners? They can see through many types of clothing as well: and have the added benefit of being a lot safer.
Re:They are another layer (Score:4, Informative)
Active systems, as they exist now, are portal only. Thus there is only the exposure to several seconds of either millimeter-wave or x-ray radiation while in the portal. Also, the operators have no control over the emitted power. It is constant, person to person. The SNR of active systems is incredible even at such low radiation levels; increasing it would do nothing useful.
Regarding your comment of crowd scanning; this is how some passive systems work, but (currently) no active systems. Passive, i.e., picture a CCD. Visible or IR currently, right? Well, imagine a millimeter-wave/terahertz one. Still passive, but can see through clothing at decreased spatial resolution (diffraction limited). No harm done by standing in front of a passive sensor all day long.
About the transmission/storage of images: That is determined by the final system manufacturer and the TSA. I work only on the imaging hardware and initial display. I tend to agree with you, however.
Why millimeter-wave over IR? IR cannot penetrate clothing as well as you think [aip.org]. And IR sensors are no more 'safe' than passive millimeter-wave/terahertz sensors: both are 100% safe.
Is their slowness inherent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Observing the lines at the airport, I've noticed that the imaging machines are much slower than the rest of the line. They were only pulling 1 in 5 people out of the regular line to go into the imaging machine and the machine was still at full capacity. Is there anything in the works to make these machines process people faster?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They are another layer (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest issue is the special scanners will stop what they did last time. It's the same issue the TSA and their counterparts have with each iteration of security practices.
They all assume the terrorist will use the same method as they have already done. What happens when they don't? You get what happened over the holiday. The heightened security fights the last attack, not the upcoming one.
- The original 9/11 plot had terrorists taking over the plane, so the put in super doors and other measures to keep people out of the cockpit.
- A potential attack had liquid explosives, so no more liquids over 3.4 oz (which is a joke measure anyway)
- Next attack used a shoe bomb, so we take off our shoes
- Next attack used a underpants bomb...
No security method will keep you perfectly safe. All methods have their weaknesses and it is ultimately up to the passengers to assist in combating those wishing to do harm to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cost, cost, cost. With diminishing marginal returns.
Sorry if I sound like a jerk. But adding layers of security is of questionable value at a certain point. There will always be some threat that we can't detect. And you can bet that an intelligent te
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Body Paint (Score:5, Funny)
The real danger... (Score:5, Insightful)
... is to the airline industry. My wife and I have flown once since 9/11. After being pulled out and "randomly" scanned at every single stop, we decided it wasn't worth the hassle anymore. Now we drive to where we want to be. It's amazing how pretty parts this country are from the ground. We don't really have any plans to fly again until this whole security theater thing has blown over.
Apparently we're not alone; general travel was up 2.2% over the holidays yet air travel was down 6.4%. This security nonsense only hurts the airlines. Soon we won't have a robust air travel system in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm planning a trip back out east to attend a friends wedding in the spring (It's in MA and I live in OH).
First I thought about driving, it's roughly a 13 hour drive, straight through, not a quick jaunt.
Then I started thinking about flying. Lets see, the airport is 45 minutes away from where I live, plus it's a busy delta hub (Cincinnati) so you want to arrive early to make sure you get through security, so figure 90 minutes before flight. We're talking leaving 2 hours and fifteen minutes before my flight
4th Amendment (Score:2)
All this "security theater" does little, and does so at the cost of a massive violation of our Constitution's 4th Amendment (to wit: privacy of person and possessions not otherwise subject to individualized judge-signed warrant). The right to such privacy is enumerated for a reason, and this wholesale ignoring of it will backfire badly.
It should be noted that (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael Chertoff, makes money from full body scanners. So he isn't exactly unbiased.
Also, he is kind of a jack ass who really doesn't seem to care for the constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, he's no longer Secretary of Homeland Security.
Air line security is based on STUPID ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
2. The real problem is stopping another hijacking, not an explosion. Hijacking is much CHEAPER to defend against with a reinforced titanium door (light weight and strong) and the willingness to blow up the plane ourselves rather than let terrorists turn it into a weapon against a ground target.
The moronic TSA crap does not and can never stop terrorists, but it can delay, annoy and cost the flying public huge amounts of cash in an attempt to 'look like we are doing something'.
In my opinion, the terrorists have won. They destroyed our airline industry and convinced too many scared fools to willing give up their freedom in the 5 years directly after 9/11.
Why is Chertoff so keen on full-body scanners? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it be because he has a financial interest in selling them? Why, yes. Yes it could [gawker.com]. Not that he ever mentioned any of that in his numerous television interviews extolling the virtues of the things - you're meant to think that he's flogging them because he's genuinely convinced of their effectiveness.
To be clear: I'm not opposed to the former DHS secretary taking a post-politics job in the security industry. I'm not even against him appearing on my teevee to flog his products. What stinks, though, is when he doesn't make it clear that his words amount to an advertisement rather than news.
nope. (Score:3, Insightful)
Short answer: No.
Whether or not these scanners can actually detect such explosives is largely irrelevant.
This specific bomber was on watch lists, bought a one-way ticket with cash, and had worried his father enough for him to contact authorities. There are plenty of things already in-place that could have caught the would-be bomber, but didn't.
These new gadgets might very well help catch terrorists... But they aren't going to magically eliminate all terrorism.
They'll find an explosive that isn't detected. Or they'll carry it on in some way that isn't detected. Or they'll bribe the right people to get past security un-screened. Or they'll get people hired in the right places to bypass security entirely. Or maybe they'll blow up something instead of a plane - another building, or a train, or a boat.
We're still looking at treating the symptoms, rather than the disease itself. We're addressing specific actions - he tried to blow up a plane with a bomb in his underwear - rather than the root cause of these actions - religious extremism that's willing to sacrifice plenty of lives to make a statement.
As long as that extremism exists... And especially when we're willing to give their statements so much attention... Terrorism will persist, regardless of what technological gadgetry we put in place.
Considering the recent bomber BYPASSED security... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't take my word for it, listen to this NPR interview: Attorney witnessed bomber before flight had already bypassed security with no Passport [npr.org]
Paying for govt incompetance with my liberties (Score:3, Insightful)
I see this situation as paying for federal government incompetence with my civil liberties.
I read in the news that various security & intelligence networks had red flags about the Nigerian terrorist but decided not to act.
The way to prevent future problems is to fix the broken process whereby a red flag can come up and be ignored.
Not by trampling on people's civil liberties and right to privacy.
This isn't the first time this bullshit happened.
Prior to 9/11 one of the terrorists told a flight instructor that he didn't need to know how to land. Reports about the hijackers were lodged in several intelligence/security agencies. They were ignored the way red flags about the Nigerian terrorist was ignored.
President Bush created an entire new Federal agency because he felt he couldn't fix the dysfunctional culture at the FBI.
Today I read that there was 3rd gate crasher at the White House.
It is time to start visibly firing people.
The private sector fires people for serious screw ups. Putting the lives of the President and other Americans at risk is of far more importance than a network admin downloading malware.
only image tech needed to display terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
Send mirrors to everyone supporting the TSA, anti-terror overreaction and hysteria. Look in the mirror. You're the people who are helping terrorists win. When the terrorists give it their best shot, kill a few thousand and we shrug it off like nothing and go about our lives with no change, THAT is winning the war on terror. Turning ourselves into a police state while bombing the fuck out of random civilians in their country is giving them everything they could ask for short of sodomizing ourselves with a lit stick of dynamite.
Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)
I heard that the full body scanners can not detect an explosive device hidden by rolls of fat in an obese person. I can't picture those rolls being searched by hand either. Yuck.
Why wouldn't terrorists recruit fat people?
Why don't we just admit that airport security is futile?
Re: (Score:2)
...like the Maginot Line.
Didn't it work? Oh wait....
Re: (Score:2)
Given that just the other day they had to completely lock down Newark and rescan everyone because someone walked right around security, I think it's an apt comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
The Maginot Line provided a lot more gainful employment than these devices do. This is the new cold war. (I bet all the big bucks in the future of the nuclear weapon biz are going towards the new frontiers of maintenance and clean-up. All the investment of the last sixty or so years was just the "special introductory price low-down-payment".)
The bill is in the mail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Were any provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire soon or something?
They'll extend it, don't worry. In any case, I think I read that the supreme court did rule some of it unconstitutional already.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If only you hadn't been wearing a long black beard and carrying a prayer mat, you might have made it through the full body scanner quicker, then you really *would* have been first !
Re: (Score:2)
considering that most suicide bombers are children/disaffected teens anyway? It seems pretty likely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trained dogs and handlers are the best bet.
Dogs can be trained to not only detect certain substances but also detect fear responses. So something concealed in a body might make it through but the dog may still alert to the fear response so the person can be pulled aside for a more thorough search. Of course dogs aren't high tech so they can't be a solution in the US.
Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
Because privacy [fyngyrz.com] is still something we're raised to expect as a basic civilized consideration, a fundamental personal liberty to maintain social boundaries until we wish otherwise. It's just that simple.