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

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#51

Post by Alex3917 »

tptacek wrote: post #24
johngalt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusing these searches is important even if pat-downs are considered more intrusive. If we all do this, and the machines sit idle; eventually they will be removed.

The machines are never going anywhere; the government invested zillions of dollars in them after the underpants bomber. Too many career civil servants would lose their jobs if they got sidelined. But you're right: things will improve if most people refuse the strip search; the TSA will get better at pretending to screen the opt-outs, and the machines won't matter anymore.

The government invests billions of dollars in lots of projects that get sidelined. Just look at Afghanistan.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#52

Post by sliverstorm »

gojomo wrote: post #47

If there any substance -- for example, a deodorant or lotion with a specific ingredient -- which would allow drawing a picture or words on your body for the scan-reviewers to see?

I'd bet anything with metal would do the trick. So actually, maybe deodorant, as it contains aluminum.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#53

Post by TallGuyShort »

makmanalp wrote: post #49
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?

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?

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#54

Post by sliverstorm »

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.

No, it wouldn't bother me. In fact, it might motivate me to put on some muscle and get a little more fit.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#55

Post by tptacek »

lutorm wrote: post #50
tptacek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I could get everyone to do anything at my command, I'd have a lot more fun with it than simply getting people to opt out of strip searches. Suffice it to say that chaos is not going to ensue, but a helpful amount of backpressure in the system might.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#56

Post by tptacek »

evgen wrote: post #39
runjake wrote: post #27

Every time the TSA rambles on about how giving up this little bit of freedom saves your life from terrorism, I wonder why a journalist doesn't hit them up for comment on the (perhaps apocryphal) quote "Those who would give up their liberty for security deserve neither".

Perhaps you should learn the quote first: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Now you just need to prove that the liberties being abrogated are essential and that the security being provided is temporary.

And since the liberty (privacy) that's being abrogated here isn't even mentioned in the Constitution --- and reasonable, experienced Constitutional Law scholars can argue that we aren't guaranteed it --- that's a tough row to hoe.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#57

Post by vl »

All hope for is that they will design a scanner that scans me and my backpack instantly as I walk through it so I can arrive at the airport 20 minutes before the flight and not to wait in line to take out my laptop and remove my shoes. I can even pay $10 every time I go though such device to get to my plane faster.

And as for some overpaid TSA agent seeing me "naked"? You know, I really don't care.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#58

Post by Splines »

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,…

FWIW, my son was selected for a pat-down search when we flew in Canada on a domestic flight. Notwithstanding the logic of deciding that a 10 year old carrying a Nintendo DS was a security threat, the agent was quite respectful, asking for my permission first, being very clear what was going on, and performing the pat-down in a professional (to my eyes) and efficient manner.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#59

Post by jamesseda »

tptacek wrote: post #24
johngalt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusing these searches is important even if pat-downs are considered more intrusive. If we all do this, and the machines sit idle; eventually they will be removed.

The machines are never going anywhere; the government invested zillions of dollars in them after the underpants bomber. Too many career civil servants would lose their jobs if they got sidelined. But you're right: things will improve if most people refuse the strip search; the TSA will get better at pretending to screen the opt-outs, and the machines won't matter anymore.

Wait until some politician's daughter's "scan" shows up in public.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#60

Post by eru »

_ouxp wrote: post #42
mrduncan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There were several variations. In one variation the `teacher' could see the `pupil'.
Post reply on HN