TSA Launched Airport Security Equipment Last Week Which Enables Screeners to See What’s Under Your Clothes
Via Slate.com
Last week, TSA began using backscatters at airports to screen passengers for weapons. The first machine is up and running in Phoenix. The next ones will be in New York and Los Angeles. The machines have been modified with a “privacy algorithm” to clean up what they show. But even the tempered images tell you more than you need to know about the endowments of the people seated next to you.
Pretty creepy if you ask me, kind of like airport voyeurs.
.jpg)
More than what the person next to you needs to know – maybe. But not more than those charged w/ security need to know. To detect things under the clothes there are two options- a manual search by hand, which people have also objected to; or some type of picture that can detect hidden objects. I’m not saying which is more invasive, but the reality is there has to be some means by which hidden weapons or devices can be detected. Metal detectors are woefully outdated. From the article it seems like, at least for now, people have the option to be manually patted down for weapons instead. Further, the viewing screen is in a remote location so the image is not on display for your fellow passengers to see. I don’t have a problem with these kinds of measures.
Comment by anon — March 3, 2007 @ 6:09 PM
I have to admit, that I was in an airport when I posted this and didn’t do much research on it (to be honest, NO research) but your point of it being in a remote location, AND if a same sex screener is required, I may not have a problem with this.
Comment by shelray — March 3, 2007 @ 7:54 PM
in my honest opinion these backscatters should not be allowed in airports, yes i understand that there needs to be a better way to find plastic weapons and carefuly hidden explosives that cant be found by the methods that are now in place, but i do feel that this method goes far beyond the “its only for security purposes” and im 100% certain that there are far less “revealing” scanners that are just as accurate and not nearly as revealing as these backscatters.
the last thing i need when i go to an airport is someone oogling my naked image, even if its “cleaned up” the machines can always be tampered with to show more then they are supposed to. pictures taken, or video recorded. i could care less about it being discreet and the fact that the person doing the scans cant see you. its an invasion of privacy and IMO is nothing more then a group of government perverts who are using terrorism to make it justifyable. i say go back to the drawing boards and come up with somthing thats just as effective and less revealing or the Airports lose my buisness
Comment by csb — March 5, 2007 @ 6:18 PM
male screens male and female screens female, or create some sort of device to scan the screens for suspicious objects..maybe thats too hard to achieve.. if not then I rather drive or go watch football instead of letting some strangers looking at me and my wife nude image, technology abuse I’d say but some people might disagree
Comment by joe — March 5, 2007 @ 9:32 PM
This is sort of a Catch-22 situation for the TSA. It’s the TSA’s job as a government organization to protect the airport public from airport psychos. In order to see any concealed weapons or contraband that is on a person, you will have to use some sort of method that can detect items that may be in “inappropriate” places. You can look into bags, have people go through metal detectors and use chemical detection for explosives, but there are all far from fool-proof and even if 1 out of every 1,000 would-be terrorists gets through, you’ve got a national security problem.
I’ll liken this to the FDA. Similarly, they are a government organization designed to protect the public from dangers due to medication and food items. In order to detect any negative effects that new drugs have on humans, you need to hold clinical trials on humans to see the effects. You can test new medicines on animals all you want, but they often can’t predict small, serious risks that show up in clinical trials.
If you want to be safe from drugs that have really harmful side effects, you’re going to have to test them on humans. Similarly, if you want to be able to detect weapons or items that might be concealed underneath clothing, you will have to have some way of viewing underneath clothing.
What would you have the TSA do? Proceed with the (relatively) easy-to-get-something-dangerous-though security checks? Granted the system must be designed to limit how revealing the scan is, but censoring scans to protect privacy will come at the cost of limiting the ability to detect criminal behavior. I think for the most part the system they have is reasonable in this regard.
Plus, if the airport security really wanted to look at pictures of naked people.. um… there’s the internet. It’s waay easier to find what you want there, and a lot of airports have WiFi now…
Like I said, catch-22.
Comment by Wondertwin — March 6, 2007 @ 7:57 PM
Wondertwin,
Plus, if the airport security really wanted to look at pictures of naked people.. um… there’s the internet. It’s waay easier to find what you want there, and a lot of airports have WiFi now…
Who knows, with the WiFi available in most airports, maybe airport security can have our pictures uploaded to a website called back-scatter-airport-nudity dot com by the time we get to our gates. Half-way kind of kidding on this one.
Comment by shelray — March 7, 2007 @ 10:55 AM
although i do agree that security in airports needs to be improved greatly, i do not feel that they need to take such an extreme measure of taking a scan to see through our cloths, im no tech expert but i do believe that there are methods that are just as effective yet not so graphic as to show you naked. i can almost guarantee that in 4 years time when these things are put in all airports that a website will be put on the internet with a whole new voyueristic community of backscatter images with your real image posted next to it. there are sick people in this world and they are willing to go through ANY means to get what they want.
on a side note what happens when a terrorist puts a plastic knife up his butt, or uses a condom to swallow some anthrax. i can also guarantee that terrorists are willing to walk a little funny just to achieve their religous/political goals as well. do those machines see the inside of a person? doubtful…so untill they come up with a method of searching someone thats just as effective and less revealing i will be driving not flying.
Comment by csb — March 7, 2007 @ 12:23 PM