Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#131

Post by dedward »

georgemcbay wrote: post #121

FTA: "For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail" The only situation that would make this "obvious" is if the technology is inadequate. Basically by saying that, they're admitting to a large amount of security through obscurity. Imagine a bank's website saying "For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss how our passwords are store in detail". Wait, why not? If t…

Can you cite a bank website where they DO explain how their passwords are stored in detail?

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#132

Post by dedward »

epaga wrote: post #98

Though both the email and the blog response from TSA are incredibly unprofessional, the email is NOT intimidation or a "veiled threat", and exaggerating by claiming it is is not going to help a sane discussion about this issue. What do you think the TSA is "threatening" to do? They have no power over the media. All the TSA are saying is "exercise caution with reporting on bloggers that make random statements because…

Is that what the TSA actually said, or just your interpretation of it?

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#134

Post by [deleted] »

cafard wrote: post #19
Newgy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your brave work on this issue, you are a true patriot. "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams, Founding Father

Was the expression "brush fire" current in the late 1700s? In fact, the whole sentence looks a little questionable.

[deleted]

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#135

Post by ktizo »

bpd1069 wrote: post #119
akavi wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have the backgroundpattern made of alternating pieces of absorbent and transparent material, then. (I assume the machines work by measuring obstruction of rays. If they work by reflection of rays, then replace "absorbent and transparent" with "absorbent and reflective".)

Yes, that is basically what I suggested, the material (film) would just drape over the backscatter plate. The resultant image (without a subject) would resemble a black / not so black checkerboard pattern. The image appears to be a negative relative to the amount of xrays reflected back to the xray source so the additional material would simply have to be slightly less reflective (more absorbent) than the backscatter…

No, the image is the positive of the reflected xray, white is more backscatter. Metal has little backscatter and neither does empty space. There is no 'backscatter plate' in terms of a background required to generate the silhouette as far as I am aware.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#136

Post by ilamont »

rhizome wrote: post #72
danso wrote: post #55

Just want to point this out: "strongly caution" is what the TSA flak told the reporter (according to the reporter). That doesn't necessarily mean "don't report this or we'll send you to Gitmo". It most likely was expressed in the context of "you're going to look stupid/spread misinformation if you do." I'm not saying the TSA flak won't be vindictive if a reporter covers the story. I'm just saying, there's not an imme…

What does the TSA care about people looking stupid? Boing Boing took down their TSA post.

This one is still up:

http://boingboing.net/2012/03/07/howto-get-metal-through-a-t...

I can't imagine any BoingBoing writers sitting still if the TSA forced something like this to be removed from the site.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#137

Post by doug1001 »

Newgy wrote: post #12
tsaoutourpants wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be requesting a copy by FOIA... will post on my blog whenever it comes :)

Thank you for your brave work on this issue, you are a true patriot. "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams, Founding Father

sure but this only applies to a citizen's inalienable right to make beer (and seasonal ales).

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#138

Post by jcampbell1 »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #129
jcampbell1 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not familiar with Sovereign Immunity. No lawyer in the world salivates at the thought of suing the federal government.

Maybe you're not familiar with the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides a waiver for the federal government's immunity in the case that a federal employee has been shown to have caused wrongful damage.

I am familiar with the Federal Tort Claims Act. No reasonable person would consider your original claim a tort. Where are the damages from one government employee making a hollow threat? What specific expenses or losses did the newspaper incur because a federal employee made a threat?

Your case is weak, otherwise lawyers would be fully employed.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#139

Post by eschulte »

dedward wrote: post #131
georgemcbay wrote: post #121

FTA: "For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection capability in detail" The only situation that would make this "obvious" is if the technology is inadequate. Basically by saying that, they're admitting to a large amount of security through obscurity. Imagine a bank's website saying "For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss how our passwords are store in detail". Wait, why not? If t…

Can you cite a bank website where they DO explain how their passwords are stored in detail?

I don't talk to many banks about their password storage, but they all should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#140

Post by regularfry »

rhplus wrote: post #85
regularfry wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current arrangement subjects you to one short burst of radiation to take a static image, and it's enough energy to have some doctors worried. Multiply that up by however many frames you want to capture, and I don't think it would be "some doctors" any more. Besides, I've got no idea if the machines in place have microwave units that can withstand a high duty cycle like that. I wouldn't be surprised if they can't.

Does anyone have some independently verified numbers for the amount of radiation that a FBS exposes a passenger to and how it compares to the amount of radiation exposure the same passenger would get from 3 hours in a plane? The TSA claims that the latter is significantly (like 100x) greater than the former.

There are numbers out there, but the problem isn't just the amount of energy, it's where it's concentrated. The theory goes that because of its very short wavelength everything that gets absorbed is concentrated in the topmost layers of the skin, so the energy density where it might be damaging is much higher than the absolute amount of energy might suggest.

From memory part of the argument was that the studies hadn't yet been done which might show whether this could be a health issue, so claiming the scanners were safe was at best premature.

Post reply on HN