Live data from Hacker News

TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#11

Why don't they just install a background behind the subject that produces a checkerboard pattern? This is exactly why programs like Photoshop use a checkered background to make it trivial to detect transparency in your images. Wouldn't that render the exploit this guy found obsolete?

Not sure, it might actually make it harder to tell where the body ends and the checkerboard begins, because the resolution is so poor. Either way, this was but one exploit I found. :)

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#12
What's supremely confusing is that the back scatter machines were meant to protect us against the growing threat of non-metallic weapons and yet many TSA demos show how effective they are at finding things like guns and knives. Such objects would be passively and reliably detected by a metal detector and now we find they can be easily taken through a back scatter machine.

We've put incomplete tech and massive room for human error in between people and air planes. It's worse than security theater, it's a full digression in our our actual security. We're actually less safe than we were 15 years ago. If this man's video is to be trusted, it's now easier than ever to bring a box cutter onto an airplane. Boggles the mind.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#13

Why don't they just install a background behind the subject that produces a checkerboard pattern? This is exactly why programs like Photoshop use a checkered background to make it trivial to detect transparency in your images. Wouldn't that render the exploit this guy found obsolete?

Install a background? Photoshop? You do realize that the backscatter machines aren't taking a picture right? There isn't a "background" to change. It's basically an X-ray machine, throw some radiation, see what bounces back.

I'll let you figure out why building a backing that is made up of different materials that reflect radiation in a checkerboard pattern won't work.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#14
Here's a few FAQ'ish type links:

Body scanner proven ineffective video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo

Body scanner has 54% false positive rate https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-sca...

Cost of the body scanners http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/07/what_tsa_se...

Some pretty interesting numbers here:

"Of these, 18 airports handle fewer than 1,000 passengers daily but were equipped with 21 scanners at an estimated installed cost of $7.3 million to screen 9,538 passengers per day."

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#15
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to know that too. I just threw in $100 (via the donation button on the top right of the linked article), but I'm glad to donate more if he needs it. I really wish I had time to tilt at this particular windmill, so I'm very grateful that this fellow is being so relentless.

Thank you for that! The cost in filing fees, printing, and mailing for SCOTUS I estimate to be near $2K. If it's accepted, I need to travel to DC for oral arguments. All this in addition to dozens (or more) hours of missed work in order to research, write, and handle things. Even if I got no donations, I would self-fund this suit, so no worries about donating more... anything anyone wants to contribute is much apprec…

[deleted]

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#16
post #9
post #3

What are the estimated costs of getting a lawsuit to the Supreme Court?

I'd love to know that too. I just threw in $100 (via the donation button on the top right of the linked article), but I'm glad to donate more if he needs it. I really wish I had time to tilt at this particular windmill, so I'm very grateful that this fellow is being so relentless.

just FYI, the idiom "tilting at windmills" implies an imaginary opponent. TSA is very much real, unfortunately.

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#17
post #8
post #6

Be sure to read the TSA's official response on their blog. [1] The comments there are priceless. [1] http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/03/viral-video-about-body-scanners....

What morons, they use the word "interwebs" in the first sentence to make themselves look hip to the internet. The whole tone of this blog post though really rubs me the wrong way. it comes across as a post from defensive asshole teen who was caught looking like a fool, as opposed to a federal agency funded with BILLIONS of free money they take from the citizens which they spend in ways which are completely unaccounta…

Nobody will ever be happy with blog posts. If they wrote it like they were writing a tax document, someone would say "look at these boobs lawyerizing every word". If they write it like a kitteh, it's "look at these idiots trying to be hip". I found the tone funny, but regardless of whether or not they assume their audience knows what lolcats are, the TSA is still a waste of money. You don't need to read their blog to know that!

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#18
post #8
post #6

Be sure to read the TSA's official response on their blog. [1] The comments there are priceless. [1] http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/03/viral-video-about-body-scanners....

What morons, they use the word "interwebs" in the first sentence to make themselves look hip to the internet. The whole tone of this blog post though really rubs me the wrong way. it comes across as a post from defensive asshole teen who was caught looking like a fool, as opposed to a federal agency funded with BILLIONS of free money they take from the citizens which they spend in ways which are completely unaccounta…

skimming billions of dollars from programs we actually need

How many failing bridges could have been replaced with the $60 billion we've spent on the TSA? Those would be some nice skilled jobs for people dropping out of our flagging manufacturing sector...

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#19

Why don't they just install a background behind the subject that produces a checkerboard pattern? This is exactly why programs like Photoshop use a checkered background to make it trivial to detect transparency in your images. Wouldn't that render the exploit this guy found obsolete?

Install a background? Photoshop? You do realize that the backscatter machines aren't taking a picture right? There isn't a "background" to change. It's basically an X-ray machine, throw some radiation, see what bounces back. I'll let you figure out why building a backing that is made up of different materials that reflect radiation in a checkerboard pattern won't work.

I'll let you figure out why building a backing that is made up of different materials that reflect radiation in a checkerboard pattern won't work.

Uh. Why won't it work? From what I recall of the images, they're sort of gray-scale. The brightness of a body drops off as it falls away from the camera (i.e. the outline of your body is a darker gray than, say, your forward-facing bellybutton region), since, presumably, as we wrap around to the sides of your body, more energy is bounced out to the sides than to the 'camera'.

So, I assume it's depicting the amount of radiation reflected back to the 'camera', right? So, if you make a checkerboard background of materials that bounce differing amounts of energy back (either due to composition of the tile or its angle), why wouldn't it work?

Re: TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ

#20

Why don't they just install a background behind the subject that produces a checkerboard pattern? This is exactly why programs like Photoshop use a checkered background to make it trivial to detect transparency in your images. Wouldn't that render the exploit this guy found obsolete?

Install a background? Photoshop? You do realize that the backscatter machines aren't taking a picture right? There isn't a "background" to change. It's basically an X-ray machine, throw some radiation, see what bounces back. I'll let you figure out why building a backing that is made up of different materials that reflect radiation in a checkerboard pattern won't work.

The phrases "You do realize that" and "I'll let you figure out why" are condescending. The tone of your post is rude. Moreover, you're clearly the one who doesn't understand: The prior poster was proposing a checker pattern of reflective material on the background.
Post reply on HN