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

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#41

Post by Silhouette »

pmjordan wrote: post #14
5teev wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Object while you can, before it's mandatory to surrender all civil rights in order to fly.

Already the case in the UK as far as I know. Not everyone is required to go through them, and not all airports have them, but if you're one of the "lucky" ones and you refuse, you don't fly. Can't seem to find the article from some months ago to back this up, unfortunately.

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 world will end when the new government starts undoing all the abusive laws and regulations that the old one imposed.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#42

Post by _ouxp »

mrduncan wrote: post #6
tptacek wrote: 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…

The same is not true of a series of images on a screen in an isolated room. Images on screens are not people. There is no social conditioning that normal human beings have that will cause people to automatically respect images on a screen. I'd argue that has pretty much been proven by the Milgram experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

While I believe the article is correct, and later experiments probably bear it out, Milgram's experiments don't directly support that cliam: The "teacher" (the subject) could not see the person he believed he was shocking at all.

Nonetheless, it's a relevant link to bring up because of the chain of command and obedience to authority aspects at play here.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#44

Post by swombat »

MartinCron wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: 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…

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no I haven't been through an electronic strip search, so I can't speak to that. I can speak to the last time I had a pat-down at the airport: I found it pretty invasive. I've never thought of myself as a big "personal space" guy, but here is this TSA agent, grabbing aggressively at all of my pockets,…

I can't recall where I heard/read that, but I seem to remember some psychology research that proposed that the psychologically damaging thing about the search you describe is not actually the search itself, but precisely the fact that you can't do anything about it.

IIRC, the conclusion of that research was something along the lines of: to completely destroy someone's self-confidence/emotional stability, all you need to do is that every day, for five minutes, at the same time, five people appear out of nowhere and hold him down, without harming him, for five minutes. If you do that every day for a year or two, you'll have a remnant of a human being at the end (in most cases).

My father works with victims of "mobbing" (basically bullying at work). One of his clients was a normal office worker who was being bullied by the security guard at work. Every morning, the security guard would single him out for a pat down search - every single morning. Apparently the guy was on the verge of a nervous breakdown by the time my dad saw him.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#45

Post by pmjordan »

Silhouette wrote: post #41
pmjordan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Already the case in the UK as far as I know. Not everyone is required to go through them, and not all airports have them, but if you're one of the "lucky" ones and you refuse, you don't fly. Can't seem to find the article from some months ago to back this up, unfortunately.

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…

Is there a list of airports (terminals?) where these scanners are being used? I visit family in the UK a couple of times a year, usually by plane, but this is one of the reasons we're taking the car & ferry on the upcoming trip. And yeah, I strongly hope the Tory & LibDem government make good on their civil liberty promises and then some.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#46

Post by gojomo »

tptacek wrote: post #13
scott_s wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no. There's no objective answer to this. I believe you and I have discussed this before. Personally, the scans don't bother me at all. Being patted down doesn't bother me too much, but it does bother me at least some. So, for me, I'd rather walk through a scanner unobstructed than be patted down.

Would it bother you to find a name-attributed copy of your body scan in a zip file on Rapidshare? Why do you assume that won't happen? I assume the opposite.

If you're one of the few people who have their body scans leaked, you'll be a sort of celebrity. If you're one of the many, it'll be no big deal.

The scan pose and false-colors are so clinical that any such image wouldn't be titillating. I suppose it might reveal an embarrassing piercing/implant/deformity. ("OMG! He has a tail!")

As a mechanism for harassment of public figures, it seems less harmful than photoshopped fake nude (or other compromising position) pictures -- and you can't stop those, and they're more likely to mislead the unwary.

I'm concerned about the idea that an arbitrarily detailed personal search can be required before travel -- but that concern applies at least as much to pat-downs and carry-on-searches as body-scans. In fact, probably more, because while we all have naked bodies, an agent rifling through my carry-on sees my books and personal effects -- unique to me.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#48

Post by jeebusroxors »

MartinCron wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: 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…

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no I haven't been through an electronic strip search, so I can't speak to that. I can speak to the last time I had a pat-down at the airport: I found it pretty invasive. I've never thought of myself as a big "personal space" guy, but here is this TSA agent, grabbing aggressively at all of my pockets,…

The (unfortunate) third option is not flying, or at least not commercially and via airlines.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#49

Post by makmanalp »

tptacek wrote: 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…

Isn't this an offense? Can't they be sued for lying to the public? Why do they get to get away with this?

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#50

Post by lutorm »

tptacek wrote: post #21
melling wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fast-path TSA agents don't do the opt-out pat downs. They couldn't: the search happens in a semi-secluded area of the checkpoint, and the whole line would have to shut down if they didn't have people dedicated to that task. You do not in fact add 5 minutes for everyone else. What is true is that you may end up in line behind 1 other person waiting for extended screening (if they don't have their ID, or if they go…

But you are suggestion everyone "opt out". chaos would ensue.
Post reply on HN