Live data from Hacker News

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

news.cnet.com

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#101
post #88
post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

That random selection for additional screening was really getting to me until I shaved my beard, and it stopped.

random, you say? ;-)

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#102
post #16
post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

It will add 5 minutes for everyone else too. Get in a security line on a busy travel day and 10 extra pat-downs will add up. We need a better solution. I want to arrive, with my carry-on luggage, 30 minutes before takeoff for my 1 hour flight home.

Sorry for inconveniencing you while trying to protect your civil rights. Some people....

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#103
post #2

I'm shocked, shocked! that electronic strip searches might be misused by the crack team of professionals at the TSA. This is very simple: (a) call these things what they are: electronic strip searches. (b) refuse to submit to them at the airport. I just did this on a flight from Kansas City. Guess what? Not a big deal. You'll get the same pat-down search you get when you're "randomly selected for additional screening…

(b) refuse to submit to them at the airport.

From personal experience, that's probably not a good idea if you look South Asian or have a beard. I've been stopped a few too many times in London as part of a "random check" (everytime I hadn't shaved). I wouldn't want to increase the suspicion by being unco-operative.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#104
post #76
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were several variations. In one variation the `teacher' could see the `pupil'.

In another variation, the teacher actually had to physically press the (fake) pupil's hands onto the device that gave electric shocks. IIRC, this squicked out a few more people, but quite a large portion still went through with it.

Proximity to the teacher was the biggest influencer rather than proximity to the student. When the teacher was further away (in some simply on a phone) the subject would more frequently refuse, more so than when they were in close proximity to the student.

Proximity to the student shouldn't be ruled out, after all it would get a few more people behaving like they really should, however its these screening people's proximity to their bosses that is the biggest influence on whether they treat a person with humanity or not.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#105
In the brave new USA, you can tell they are lying when their lips are moving. They can make claims like this, that the machines' scans cannot be stored, with no basis in fact whatsoever and suffering no real consequences for the lying. I wish this were the only recent example of this sort of pathological lying by the government's corporate mercenaries.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#106
post #91
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of charges that you can be arrested for at the sole discretion of the officer. I've heard exchanges like: officer: Don't go anywhere friend: Am I under arrest? officer: No, but don't go anywhere. friend: If I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving. officer: If you leave, I *will* arrest you with impeding an investigation / obstruction of justice (That exchange followed from someone not involved in a…

If a cop ever pulls that on you, lawyer up instantly. If you're not free to leave, you're under arrest, regardless of what state they say you are in, whether they have mirandized you, etc.

Can you say a bit more about "lawyering up"? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean specifically to call a lawyer, or imply that you have one... etc. Thanks.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#107
post #96
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What default security procedure does an electronic strip search replace, that is more invasive? Removing your shoes?

Remove shoes, remove belt. Walk through metal detector. Forgot to remove change, so metal detector beeps. Security guy asks if he can scan me with hand-held scanner and I consent. He sweeps it all over, oddly it beeps in places other than my pocket. But it also beeps at my pocket. Security guy asks if he can pat those areas down. I consent. Turn around. More waving, more beeping, maybe more patting down. Happens to m…

Millimeter wave detects objects, it does not generally provide enough context to identify those objects with any certainty. So any object not trivially identifiable in silhouette will still get you pulled aside.

As it detects any object, as opposed to just metal ones, it dramatically increases the chance that you, or any other passenger in queue, will forget something the scan can't rule out and create further delay.

The scan itself is far slower than the metal detector and slower than even the bomb-sniffing machines. Its presence will increase your security queue time, even if you somehow become less forgetful and have hassle-free experiences with the new scanner itself.

You'll have traded a bit more of your privacy and liberty in exchange for increased delay, increased aggravation, increased travel costs, escalated privacy risks and it still won't make your plane trip any safer.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't fly from Heathrow airport for this reason. As far as I'm concerned, I do have something to hide: the intimate details of my body are not for the amusement or abuse of random "security" staff. If you don't like that point of view, f@#% off: we voted out the government who tried to turn us into a fear-driven police state, and now we are laughing at all the former ministers when they bleat about how much the wor…

We did the same thing here in America. Guess what? Nothing changed. Once a power is taken by the government, it is not likely to let it go. I hope you have better luck than we did.

I sympathise with your predicament. However, from my outsider's point of view, the US political system is something of a different beast to those here in Europe: it now appears to be systemically corrupt, representing special interests rather than those of the common citizen and with well-established feedback loops that make the unfortunate bias stronger with every election.

Consequently, I'm not sure elections in the US really mean very much at the moment. In the grand scheme of things, the two big political parties are closely aligned on most issues. Those distinctions that do exist between them are minor disagreements, which get dramatically exaggerated in election propaganda, rather than differences of any real substance.

I hope that here in the UK, where we have never quite fallen into the trap of having only two big political parties, we have more chance of seeing real improvement. It helps that we didn't give government to any single party at the last general election, for the first time in many years. That must have been a nasty wake-up call for those old-school Conservatives who had arrogantly assumed that they were somehow entitled to form the next government just because Labour were not going to. (Labour, does anybody remember them? No? Good. :-))

Fortunately, the principles of restoring civil liberties and rolling back the nanny/surveillance state are among the major issues on which the two coalition partners now in government strongly agreed anyway, and where there are politicians from both parties in the coalition with a long track record of criticising the sorts of measures we are talking about in this discussion. They need this sort of issue of common interest in order to build a successful and lasting coalition, and it's also a politically popular stance: FUD about terrorism threats doesn't really cut it with the average voter here any more, partly because people's minds are more focussed on basics like getting/keeping a job and paying the rent/mortgage, and partly just because you can only keep a population accepting of draconian laws for so long when there is no serious bad stuff happening to convince them to Be Afraid.

In short, I like to think that we are in with a chance, because while the political system in the US seems to have other systemic concerns and little incentive to put right the abuses of the past, here in the UK it is politically expedient to do so both for the popularity of the changes themselves and as a means of strengthening the governing coalition. Time will tell...

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#109
post #4

Great quote in this article: "For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: "The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible , while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events." Of course, the weasel words , "to the maximum ext…

This will sound shockingly heartless and coldly rational, but is the bigger problem with that statement not the idea that a few hundred, or even thousand people dying in a plane-related disaster (when magnitudes more will die of, say, bad diet, alcohol related deaths, or bad foreign policy?) is 'catastrophic'?

A catastrophe is, for example, the former, or spanish influenza. Does what I presume is the historically minute mortality (related to true catastrophes) associated with air travel, worth the cumulative inconvenience to millions, daily, of stupid, irrational rules (like no liquids in containers greater than 100ml, or no exposed sharp metals even though you could probably just take apart the hairdryer or pc cooler that you WERE allowed to take on, and have exactly the same thing)?

Unless realistic assessment of problems is undertaken, is there any foreseeable end to the severity of security measures that will be asked of us? Inflation is inevitable if we allow them to print FUD without checks or ties to the fundamentals.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to tell the public you're invading privacy to prevent terrorism. It's hard to tell the public that terrorists killed people because you respected their privacy. I'm not saying I agree - in fact I completely disagree - but as a public policy maker and politician, it probably seems illogical to do it any other way. Better to have people blame you for no privacy than blame you for death, right?

Also, there are campaign donations to be had from the vendors of full body scanners. Less so from civil liberty groups.

I think kickbacks is a more likely motivation here.
Post reply on HN