
Viral Video About Body Scanners - maverhick
http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/03/viral-video-about-body-scanners.html
======
pg
There is something chillingly unconvincing about their attempts at
informality.

Big Brother jokey is a lot more frightening than Big Brother bureaucratic or
Big Brother bombastic. Too bad this insight wasn't available to Orwell or he
could have made _1984_ even scarier.

~~~
temphn
The spelling and grammatical errors tell you within 5 seconds that this person
is not very intelligent.

    
    
      For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our 
      technology's detection capability in detail, however TSA 
      conducts extensive testing of all screening technologies 
      in the laboratory and at airports prior to rolling them 
      out to the entire field.
    

This is a run-on sentence.

    
    
      Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the 
      field and has found things artfully concealed on 
      passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic weapons, on 
      down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. 
    

"on down" is faulty parallelism.

    
    
      It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic 
      and non-metallic items, such as… you know… things that go   
      BOOM.
    

Two ellipses in one sentence? Leave aside the "BOOM".

    
    
      With all that said, it is one layer of our 20 layers of 
      security (Behavior Detection, Explosives Detection 
      Canines, Federal Air Marshals, , etc.) 
    

Extra comma and the capitalization feels bizarre.

    
    
      and is not a machine that has all the tools we need in one 
      handy device. We’ve never claimed it’s the end all be all.
    

The phrase is "the be all and end all" or "the be-all and end-all". One can go
on, but almost every sentence here displays this person's low level of
intelligence. Leaving aside the content, it's just poorly written.

The punchline is that the TSA's budget is double that of Facebook's $3.7
billion in revenue. $8.1 billion in tax dollars for a gang of complete morons.

~~~
corin_
Thinking that you can judge someone's intelligence by their spelling and
grammar is so incredibly wrong. And I don't mean wrong in a moral "don't be
that guy" way (though that too), I mean wrong as in technically inaccurate.

~~~
temphn
No.

Speaking intuitively, if you can't judge someone's intelligence by their
writing ability, what possible measure could you use? Grammatical deficiencies
are symptoms of conceptual deficiencies.

Speaking technically, vocabulary tests are some of the most highly g-loaded
batteries around:

    
    
      Different tests in a test battery may correlate with (or 
      "load onto") the g factor of the battery to different 
      degrees. These correlations are known as g loadings. An 
      individual test taker's g factor score can be estimated 
      using the loadings. Full-scale IQ scores from a test 
      battery will usually be highly correlated with g factor 
      scores. For example, the correlations between g factor 
      scores and full-scale IQ scores from Wechsler's tests 
      have been found to be greater than .95. The g loadings of 
      mental tests are always positive and range from slightly 
      greater than zero to slightly less than unity. Raven's 
      Progressive Matrices is among the tests with the highest 
      g loadings, around .80. Tests of vocabulary and general 
      information are also typically found to have high g 
      loadings.[10]
    
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29
    

It's unclear to me what your underlying premises are. We will likely go in
circles about whether you believe intelligence can be measured, whether it is
meaningful, whether g is a measure of intelligence, whether it differs between
individuals and groups, and so on. So let's agree to disagree.

Yet whatever your definition of intelligence, I believe it is hard to deny
that the TSA is run by morons.

~~~
dlss
Grammatical deficiencies _can_ be symptoms of conceptual deficiencies. They
can also be symptomatic of getting overly excited, or of discussing very
conceptually or emotionally difficult topics. They can be symptomatic of
lying. They can also signify which social group you belong to, bro.

To give a more specific critique: vocabulary tests are done in a controlled
environment, and hence can not be used to judge the correlation of vocabulary
with IQ (or g, etc) in any other environment (unless of course someone has
studied this problem and published results).

For example, many otherwise intelligent people exhibit vocabulary deficits,
working memory deficits, and many other correlates with stupidity when talking
to attractive members of the opposite gender. This doesn't mean that they have
a low IQ or g-factor.

In this case, since this was a blog post written at what must have been a very
difficult time in this poor TSA blogger's career, I don't think we can really
say that their vocabulary is highly indicative of intelligence or g-factor.

That said, I do agree that the TSA is run by morons :p

~~~
CWuestefeld
Your explanation would suggest that the writer's cognitive abilities (whatever
they might be) don't carry over into chaotic or stressful situations (i.e., he
falls apart under pressure).

I would submit that this in itself ought to disqualify him from an important
position in an agency as putatively critical as the TSA. People working there,
especially those in positions of responsibility, ought to be able to work
effectively under pressure.

~~~
mikeash
Why would a TSA blogger need to be able to work effectively under pressure?

~~~
CWuestefeld
I think the fact that we're all dissecting his work in order to criticize the
Agency goes a long way to demonstrating that.

~~~
mikeash
How? There's no pressure in the sense being discussed here. He has plenty of
time to figure out what to write and how to write it.

------
suprgeek
This has got to be one of the stupidest and (unintentionally) scary responses
ever to a serious attempt to question security.

\- Ad-Hominem attacks on the person raising the questions

\- No direct refutatio of the specific points raised in the Video

\- Co-relation and causation confusion (we have found x hence we are effective
against the things in the video)

\- Pathetic attempt at informal tone of voice

\- Appeal to Stats and big impressive numbers when none is justified

In short - Americans need to be really upset that their security is handled by
these buffoons. -

~~~
meow
the tone really got me.. it's like an alien infested corpse trying to mix with
normal humans...

------
famousactress
Wow. This blog post makes me WAY more afraid of the TSA than the original
video did. I can't wrap my head around the language used. "Things that go
BOOM" ???!?!?! Are you fucking kidding me? These are the people that are
supposedly acting in the interests of our safety? Disgusted.

Whoever wrote or approved this post ought to be fired. Fast.

~~~
monkeypizza
I hate the TSA as much as anyone, but this type of gallows humor is pretty
common - in private, it's common for doctors to joke about dying patients,
etc, because keeping things deathly serious all the time is emotionally
impossible.

~~~
klausa
Yes, but that's the key - _in private_. There are jokes I use with my friends,
that I would NEVER use in public situation.

------
philk
If their security is as good as their blogging it's time to consider
travelling by bus.

Also their "20 layers of security" chart[1] is an unintentionally hilarious
masterpiece. Note the arrow they've drawn circumventing _every layer of
security apart from passengers_. So really, we can't say they didn't warn us.

[1] <http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm>

~~~
pizza
When I saw the 20 layers chart, I thought it was a troll blog because the
graphic looks like it has _planes crashing into towers_.

~~~
Terretta
> _Each one of these layers alone is capable of stopping a terrorist attack._

Well, we were vetting crews before 911. How many attacks did that layer stop?
The sentence needs a qualifier: "...through that vector."

------
AgentConundrum
I can't believe that this is the official TSA blog. I can understand trying to
take steps to avoid the usual ridiculously dry press release style articles
that governments and big businesses normally have, but.. this was just
unprofessional.

You have "Blogger Bob" telling us to ignore the video "some guy" made and that
everything's fine because this is just one of the way they protect you from
"things that go BOOM".

Also, the blog never disputes the video. There is no text that tries to say
that the video was faked or anything, or provides any indication that the
video and the vulnerabilities contained therein aren't exactly as they appear.

Finally, just because I'm feeling particularly nitpicky tonight: they're using
Blogger's favicon and are hosted on Google's servers (DNS resolves to
ghs.l.GOOGLE.COM). Maybe it's just me, but that strikes me as a touch
unprofessional as well.

------
rogerbinns
Guess how many of the people who work on the ground airside are scanned?

In any event the TSA is not taking enough credit here. Did you know their
scanners have prevented meteorites? They have also prevented tiger attacks.
Since installing them there has not been a single instance of meteorites
hitting planes or tiger attacks on planes. I think the US government should
borrow even more money so we can get them to also prevent giraffe attacks.

~~~
cskau
Also snakes.

------
mrmaddog
2 days ago, from a BusinessWeek article about the author of the blog post:

 _“I call it the corny dad approach. I’m basically the Bob Saget of blogging,”
the 41-year-old tells Bloomberg Businessweek. “This isn’t really the most
exciting subject, so I thought I should inject some personality into it.”
Three years removed from working the security lines himself—he used to train
TSA officers at the Cincinnati airport—Blogger Bob has clearly gained some
perspective on the experience._ [1]

Whether or not entertainment has a place in government blogging is an argument
for another day, but I think we can all agree that under no circumstances
should this type of blog post ever be allowed as an official government
response.

[1] [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-05/why-cant-
the...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-05/why-cant-the-tsa-be-
as-cool-as-the-tsas-blogger-bob)

~~~
Linka4356
Surely he means "Danny Tanner," as Bob Saget is hardly a "corny dad." Not
surprised at the mistake though.

~~~
epoxyhockey
For those that have not seen the _real_ Bob Saget:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HW4mPZmKPM>

------
aprescott
Astonishing blog post.

 _Imaging technology has been extremely effective in the field and has found
things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a gun or nonmetallic
weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs._

This reminded me of part of the recent TSA Fail post by a former FBI agent.

 _Civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle should be appalled at an
unauthorized use to which TSA is putting their screening: Identifying petty
criminals--using one search method to achieve a secret goal. This is strictly
forbidden in other government branches. In the FBI, if I had a warrant to
wiretap an individual on a terrorism matter and picked-up evidence of a non-
terrorism-related crime, I could not, without FBI Headquarters and a judge’s
approval, use that as evidence in a criminal case. But TSA is using its
screening devices to carve out a niche business. According to congress, TSA
began to seek out petty criminals without congressional approval. TSA have
arrested more than 1,000 people on drug charges and other non-airline
security-related offenses to date._

<http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html>

------
thaumaturgy
I've never felt more like I was living in a prequel to Idiocracy than I did
while reading that.

~~~
grandalf
One imagines the Idiocracy intro showing how TSA evoled into TGB (Things Go
Boom).

~~~
tuxguy
TTGB (things that go boom) to be precise

FTFY :)

------
DevX101
I'm almost impressed by the linguistic gymnastics taken here to avoid saying
outright that they got caught with their pants down.

The post concludes on an entirely unrelated point to the premise of the post

| _Anybody can opt out of the body scanner for a pat-down._

Sure, I'm carrying in a gun in my shirt pocket I'd like to get on the plane.
Let me just request the patdown to make sure I get caught.

~~~
brlewis
That sentence was there for the benefit of people with safety questions about
the scanners. For more information on the medical uncertainties, follow the
link labeled "completely safe" to the Archives of Internal Medicine article
and look under "Related Article".

------
stewbrew
It seems they don't watch German television shows:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ>

~~~
quink
OK, this is the most shocking thing I've seen in a while...

I've never seen anything so awesomely refuted. Even if you don't speak German,
watch it. Basically, they do a scan of the man, who claims to be carrying a
swiss army knife, and only find a mobile and the microphone transmitter on the
back that's inevitable since they're on TV.

However, the man is carrying thermite (three vials), an igniter for the
thermite, a vial that can contain even more explosive and a normal igniter.

They claimed that in an airport situation he'd be wearing the jacket and that
they'd also have done a side view. Which is funny because these scanners can
penetrate clothing while showing skin - that's the whole point of them... and
a side view wouldn't have helped much considering that he was carrying
something in his mouth and near his lower back.

They take the stuff (which is made from materials available in any pharmacy
for a 'few cent') outside that he carried in his lower back area and set it on
fire, which melts through the pan.

One of the body-scanner people calls the whole thing 'limitedly funny'. Then
he says that "I don't know if we're well advised if we say 'look how stupid
the terrorists are' if they'd do it like a professor advises, 'then we could
bring down a 747'".

The professor moves the pan a bit and the whole thing ignites a bit more. The
whole screen turns white before the camera person decides to move back a
little.

~~~
rpstrong
If anything, the video supports the use of the TSA's active screening
technologies (backscatter and millimeter wave devices). The scanner being used
is neither of these, it is an entirely passive device - see:
[http://www.thruvision.com/Products/TS4_Sub_Pages/TS4_Product...](http://www.thruvision.com/Products/TS4_Sub_Pages/TS4_Product_Page.htm)
for a brief explanation of their technology. While ThruVision's scanner is
arguably safer, it is clearly deficient in detecting threats.

And it isn't being used by the TSA. In fact, ThruVision's website does not
cite a single instance of their scanner being used anywhere in the world for
passenger screening.

In other words, the video has NOTHING to do with current screening technology.

~~~
quink
No scanner on that market can detect things that are within a person other
than a metal detector, a swab followed by spectographic analysis or an X-ray
machine.

The igniter in his mouth wasn't found, and it's not outside the realm of
imagination that a more committed person, like a terrorist, would carry the
other stuff not in the lower back area but somewhere somewhat different and
harder to find.

How about we take it for granted that 99.999999% of people aren't terrorists
and to consider a short interview with a passenger or a metal detector sweep
or random swabs for spectographic analysis good enough?

~~~
rpstrong
I'd add allowing qualified passengers to carry handguns.

I won't defend the TSA or Big Sister at all, but just pointing out that they
weren't using these.

I didn't watch the subtitled version, so I'm not clear on exactly was going
on. But the images - which didn't look at all like the screen shots that I've
seen online - were a tip-off that this didn't represent current equipment.

------
tuxguy
As an Indian, i am always envious & jealous of how govt agencies & systems
work so much better in the US than in India. So i was really shocked to see
this blog post, after the said govt agency's credibility has been seriously
damaged (by the viral video)

"... things that go BOOM"

Are you f __*ing kidding me ? Is that how a govt official is supposed to
communicate ? Leave alone the content, but the tone of the post is very crass,
insensitive & insulting.

Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly common, even in some of the most
liberal cities in the US & the world.. San Francisco bay area.

Check out <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890052> &
<http://bit.ly/bartisevil> on the high-handedness of BART PD (Bay Area Rapid
Transit)

------
RealAmerican
The really funny thing is that this guy is probably making between $93,00 -
$142,000 (paid by us). Look at this job listing for a TSA program analyst:
<http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/311287200>

...with tasks like "You will develop and approve solutions to current and
anticipated problems"

I think Blogger Bob is writing some of these job descriptions, too.

Makes me sick.

Here are the benefits Blogger Bob gets: DHS offers competitive salaries and an
attractive benefits package, including: health, dental, vision, life, and
long-term care insurance; retirement plan; Thrift Savings Plan [similar to a
401(k)]; Flexible Spending Account; Employee Assistance Program; personal
leave days; and paid federal holidays. Other benefits may include: flexible
work schedules; telework; tuition reimbursement; transportation subsidies;
uniform allowance; health and wellness programs; and fitness centers. DHS is
committed to employee development and offers a variety of employee training
and developmental opportunities. For more information, go to
www.dhs.gov/careers and select "benefits."

------
eplanit
"tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs" go BOOM?? I can't help but notice the
glossing over of the mission creep.

[quote from article] ... Imaging technology has been extremely effective in
the field and has found things artfully concealed on passengers as large as a
gun or nonmetallic weapons, on down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs.
It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic
items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM.

------
mcantelon
"Body scanners don't work, but we do other stuff too." Jesus.

~~~
Jimmie
This is a succinct, hilarious and accurate summation. I salute you.

------
wpietri
Shorter TSA: We're not going to deny that this guy can bring whatever he wants
through, but having screened 600m passengers in the last year, we did once
find a gun and some drugs. So you're safe! And if you don't think a dose of
radiation is a good trade for pretend security, you can always wait another 15
minutes for a grumpy person to grope you.

------
tsigo
If this weren't on a .gov site I'd think this was satire. As it is, it's just
scary and sad.

~~~
AdleyEskridge
I had the same reaction.

My eyes kept twitching from "things that go BOOM" to the URL, to the
conceivably-fake logo, back to "things that go BOOM", back to the URL, back to
the logo, etc. It took me a good six to seven seconds before reality sunk in.

I'm _really_ hoping that this is simply an example of an organization that
neither takes its blog seriously nor provides much oversite over its content.
If anyone at the TSA read this post and signed off on it—wow.

The author of this post made _no_ attempt to dispute the video, instead
focusing on the fact that their are _other_ security measures. Oh, and the
author inexplicably felt it would be important mentioned that you can opt-out
of the scanners if you want. What did I just read?!

------
mattdeboard
Beyond disturbing. Equivalent of, "u mad?" Rebuttal with no refutation.
Embarrassing and useless, but just enough to placate the placid and ignorant.

------
tsaoutourpants
Blogger Bob is just another part of the TSA's layered approach to
bullshitology. I'm glad it's transparent to all, and thank you again for
covering this issue.

~~~
steve19
You, sir, are a hero!

(tsaoutourpants is Jonathan Corbett)

------
maverhick
"around the interwebs" "baggies of drugs" "things that go BOOM"

Seems legit.

~~~
slamdunc
Agreed. The TSA Out of Our Pants guy goes to the trouble of giving specific
examples in a well-articulated video and they respond with some catchy, hip-
sounding interwebs keywordz... I feel safer already.

------
newman314
The flippant behavior exhibited makes me both alarmed and angry.

Here's an interview with Blogger Bob that Google returned:
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20063825-281.html>

Apparently, being snarky on the government dime pays quite well. Dude appears
to be rocking a Rolex.

------
toyg
Their "20 layers of security" reminds me of your usual "7 proxies" and "over
9000": meaningless over-the-top numbers with no relationship with reality.

------
ghshephard
" down to a tiny pill or tiny baggies of drugs. "

Is this for real? When did the TSA start doing drug searches? Can they effect
arrests?

I'll be honest - I'm a little shocked that a supposedly "official" blogging
site is writing like a half-tweaked 13 year old and is bragging about doing
drug searches at a supposed check for weapons.

It's also pretty irresponsible to make claims about the scanning system like,
" It is completely safe " - I suspect that "Blogger Bob Burns" neither has the
background, nor the authority to make such claims (let alone the knowledge).
About all he(?) should be doing is suggesting which certifying authority has
provided a clean-bill-of-health on their scanners.

All in all the most disturbing thing I've read in a couple weeks.

------
ard0r
This is a non-serious response. I think I'm going to talk to my congressperson
about this.

------
InclinedPlane
Number of terrorist attacks detected and thwarted by TSA measures since 2001:
Zero

Number of terrorist attacks attempted since 2001 over US airspace: MORE THAN
ZERO

------
jroseattle
Well, Bob (original author) -- as if the situation couldn't be more magnified,
your post has simply added to the impression that the TSA is mostly public
hand-waving in the place of real security.

"Crude" attempt? "you know… things that go BOOM"? I sincerely hope you take
anyone's claim seriously, public or otherwise, that they can circumvent any
security measure put in place by the TSA. The tone of your blog post smacks of
disregard; if you thought it would invoke confidence on the part of the
reader, you thought wrong.

The biggest defense put forth: well, we have other security detection methods
so, hah!

Don't you get that the point about the body scanners is that they can be
beaten? That they're superfluous to the security regimen? That if you can't
defend them directly, they serve no real purpose? That's the point of the
video, and it's completely lost on you (and obviously others for whom you
speak.)

As is the impression among so many travelers, the TSA confuses "feeling safe"
with "being safe" and it appears your post simply reinforces that view.

Visions of the SNL parody skit from years ago come to mind.

------
jcromartie
This is _even worse_ than I thought the scanners were. THIS is what the
operator sees? <http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/privacy.shtm>

That means that it's a complete black-box and if you just beat the scanner's
algorithms, you beat the scanner operators too.

What a complete and utter joke.

------
einhverfr
The blog article is extremely funny.

I keep thinking, "If this were a post by Microsoft about a security
vulnerability report, I'd be in business doing Linux migrations for the rest
of my life."

------
otterley
... and nowhere do they deny that the method presented actually works.

------
ryguytilidie
"We're actually safe, I'm not going to give any evidence of this, just trust
me".

Seems fair.

------
grepherder
OK, I will play the devil's advocate.

Yes, he does not deny or dispute whether the method works as claimed.

The otherwise hip language is not helping nor does it sound sincere, I agree.

But, if we want to stay objective:

1) He describes the demonstration in the video as a "crude attempt", which is
in certain ways true. Neither is the attempt too sophisticated, nor the
documentation of it, or should I say especially the documentation. The video
itself is lacking in scientific argumentation, and makes up for the lack
thereof with unnecessary political rhetoric that I don't need to be fed to see
the simple "flaw" he claims to have discovered - more about that now...

2) The person in the video may or may not be sincere about his claims, but he
definitely is not the first person to point out this "flaw". It was known
publicly for a very long time, and it is reasonable to assume people who
developed and approved the system were well aware of it.

3) Everyone is pointing out that there is no attempt at a "scientific"
refutation in the blog post. Well, he is right in stating that their claim
never was that they can catch any single concealed object with the body
scanner. I don't see what it is exactly that he needs to refute. It is indeed
part of a layered system, and I can't see how anyone can disagree with this
concept. I'm not saying the scanner is a reasonable layer or that it should
stay - but if your argument is "it has to work 100% or it has to go", it is
pretty weak. He doesn't really evade any serious accusation here - he simply
points out the obvious and reinstates their claim: what was shown in the video
is uninteresting, because the body scanner was never about catching metal
boxes sewn to the side of a shirt with 98.5% confidence.

You can argue the body scanner is an economical disaster, dispute it on the
basis of privacy or bring up health concerns, but I like to stay objective.
There is nothing wrong with this post, as a response to the demonstration in
the video, beyond the silly language.

~~~
beagle3
What you wrote is true. So is e.g. the statement that there is an infinite
number of numbers. And they are almost equally relevant to the discussion
here.

> You can argue the body scanner is an economical disaster, dispute it on the
> basis of privacy or bring up health concerns, but I like to stay objective.
> There is nothing wrong with this post, as a response to the demonstration in
> the video, beyond the silly language.

The post does not address the main criticism in the video, which is that the
body scanner does not actually help with security.

> It was known publicly for a very long time, and it is reasonable to assume
> people who developed and approved the system were well aware of it.

That is true. And a reasonable conclusion, advocated by the video as well, is
that _the people who developed and approved the system_ don't actually care if
it offers any security advantage.

The TSA's post only makes sense if you live in a world where the TSA's job is
to grow, expand, gain more power, influence and budgets. And so does your
analysis of it.

~~~
grepherder
> The post does not address the main criticism in the video, which is that the
> body scanner does not actually help with security.

I think it is the majority here that fell for the causation-correlation
fallacy. Just because you can cheat a security system with high confidence
does not make it obsolete on that grounds alone. Imagine a hypothetical
security system that keeps you from taking any kind of firearm, but lets
knives pass through. Well, yes, then the "terrorists" can still arm themselves
with katanas and wreak havoc, but it did stop them from doing the same with
Uzis, which might decrease the impact of such an attack.

> The TSA's post only makes sense if you live in a world where the TSA's job
> is to grow, expand, gain more power, influence and budgets. And so does your
> analysis of it.

It is a dangerous thing to evaluate rational argumentation in a political
context - sadly something we see too often - especially if you want this
argumentation to hold universally, including extending it to the Congress. All
I'm saying is if you base your argument against TSA on the premise presented
in the video, you aren't likely to be taken seriously by the same fraction who
approved of this system in the first place and continue to support it. There
are many good arguments against the body scanners and the TSA in general,
focusing on a hyped viral video lacking a sound rationale only weakens your
cause.

~~~
beagle3
> Just because you can cheat a security system with high confidence does not
> make it obsolete on that grounds alone.

Actually, it does. Because the threat is not randomly selected from a pool --
it is selected specifically to bypass the security system.

It's like saying that a guard that only works 9-5 in a store that has no
locked door is a reasonable security system against thieves because it will
catch those that arrive 9-5. No, that's not how it works -- it means no thief
will come 9-5, and all thieves will arrive when the guard is not there.

Any easy-to-bypass security system _is_ obsolete as a security system
(although it may have other uses, such as extracting money from taxpayers).

> All I'm saying is if you base your argument against TSA on the premise
> presented in the video, you aren't likely to be taken seriously by the same
> fraction who approved of this system in the first place and continue to
> support it.

You conveniently ignore the fact that these people (Chertoff et al, who are
directly profiting from it) do not care about security (as has been
demonstrated time and again before this video), and are therefore unlikely to
care about any rational argument.

------
mangoman
The post mentioned that the scanners are one of 20 layers of security and
mentions Behavioral detection, Explosive Detection Canines, Federal Air
Marshall etc as some of the other "layers" of security. I wanted to see what
these 20 layers were, and I really didn't see anything that would "protect"
against someone exploiting the scanners like the video demonstrated. In fact
one of the "layers" of security was "Intelligence". How comforting. If you
want to see some serious security theater, check out
<http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm>.

This blog post is just feels forced, and makes me a little quesy...

------
stretchwithme
yeah, get all your info about the government FROM the government. No conflict
of interest there.

So, why did they defer those safety studies anyway? Just a scheduling
conflict? Too busy with an election?

The things that we have to be subjected to just to satisfy campaign
contributors.

------
warren-g
Not that I'm condoning the machines, and perhaps I'm missing something, but...

Couldn't this "vulnerability" be fixed if they took two scans? Take one of
front/back (current approach) and then ask the person to turn 90 degrees and
take another scan? to see the sides?

~~~
replax
Yes it could.

The problem with that is, that it a) doubles the amount of time needed to scan
one person and b) doubles the duration of exposure to radiation.

therefore, we'd be better of with metal detectors. Aside from that, the TSA
would have to explain, that body scanners are useless without scanning twice
and we therefore need to expose you to the double amount of radiation...

~~~
toomuchtodo
Doesn't the current scan take 3-5 seconds, and then you have a wait upwards of
20-30 seconds to get the "all clear" from the TSA agent in front of you who
was radioed from the agent viewing the body scanner image? Ridiculous.

------
presto8
I was at the airport last week and got randomly selected for the backscatter
x-ray machine. I was told to remove everything from my pockets, including
things that I would normally keep for going through a metal detector
(passport, papers, wallet, etc.).

The scan went fine, but on the other side, the TSA agent noticed that due to
the fold of my jeans, it looked like I had something in my pocket. He said he
had to pat me down to make sure I didn't have anything in there.

Which made me seriously doubt the efficacy of the backscatter machines. What's
the point of the machine if something could slip through that would still
necessitate a physical body search?

------
reader5000
Just astounding. As soon as I read "interwebs" I had to check to make sure
this was an official communications channel of a Federal agency. Mind is
blown. Is this the same level of people running the CIA/FBI? What is going on?

~~~
philwelch
The TSA are clowns, but the CIA/FBI are deadly serious by all accounts I've
heard. They're far more dangerous to be on the wrong side of.

------
nagrom
The pie-chart on the delete-o-meter on that blog sidebar doesn't reflect the
numbers underneath it. At present, there are 50k accepted comments and 17k
deleted, but the deleted slice is much less than 25%.

------
Uchikoma
The most interesting thing in that post was on what they focus. One would have
that it was terrorism, but no, they spread their attention by looking for
drugs with those body scanners. Feeling safe now.

------
reidmain
"For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection
capability in detail"

Security through obscurity.

Are they afraid that if they disclose information people would somehow be able
to find holes? If this is the case then why is this technology used? Why have
gapping holes already been pointing out by numerous people?

Thinking that "the terrorists" don't have the ability to break this system
without understanding the intricate details of it is just downright stupid.

------
functionoid
Tax payers money...billions...not sure what testing they did before buying or
they knew it and still bought them because they got their cut.

------
methoddk
What an ignorantly worded blog post. By the TSA?! Come on.

If anything, this post does nothing but give the impression that the flaw in
the scanners IS true.

------
plf
If there was any doubt as to whether the original technique described in the
original video worked, this blog post has just confirmed it.

------
Animus7
> For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection
> capability in detail...

The way I read it:

For obvious _job_ security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's
detection capability in detail...

Anyway, I sure feel safe knowing that the security of my life is entrusted to
obscurity, and I'm thankful for the trolling TSA blog posts that remind me of
this.

~~~
user24
> For obvious security reasons, we can’t discuss our technology's detection
> capability in detail...

Yes, because security through obscurity is an effective policy.

------
mattezell
It would appear that Wired came to the same conclusion as the blogger -
[http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qn0su/wiredcom_con...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/qn0su/wiredcom_confirms_1b_of_nude_body_scanners_made/)

------
ojosilva
To me the bad thing about the TSA, and counterterrorism in general, is that
every day that goes by without an attack reinforces whatever methods and
expenses they might incur.

But the worse is that only a terrible event could prove them wrong and stop
the nonsense.

------
xster
I have a feeling this response is doing them far more harm than good. It's
just a simple admission that everything stated was true and I'm going to make
it into a high school argument and call you some guy with some crude video
that's irrelevant.

------
marcamillion
This definitely looks like the beginning of the end for at least the body
scanners.

If that video brought on so much heat that they had to respond like this and
drop the ball so much, queue more public outrage and major back-pedalling in
3.....2.....1....

~~~
beagle3
If only that were true.

Can you think of a case in history where continued government incompetence (or
outright malice, depending on your point of view) that was demonstrated and
gained a lot of valid criticism and public outrage, actually resulted in a
change?

------
gaius
Stand back people, TSA Blog Team is on the case!

More seriously, these jokers let terrorists waltz on board planes (e.g. The
Shoebomber) and only the passengers, treated like criminals by TSA, stop them.

Time to send the rentacops back to the mall.

~~~
endersshadow
The Shoe Bomber took a flight from France, which is not under TSA jurisdiction
[1]. It's important to note that the TSA only operates in US airports.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)#Bomb...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_\(shoe_bomber\)#Bombing_attempt_on_American_Airlines_Flight_63)

------
adrianwaj
Confidence Trickster Bob should go through a con artist scanner. It'd explode.

------
quink
Tagged this in delicious.

Wondering if it'll show up with my tags... <http://delicious.com/quink>

Can someone else tag it too with my tags and it might show up on their
page...?

------
GBond
Tone is baffling... only explanation is the official blog is trying to spoof
their spoof?

<https://twitter.com/#!/tsagov> (TSA satire)

------
brevityness
So, this is where our tax payers' money is going? Sigh.

------
guynamedloren
Today, I am not proud to be an American. Thanks TSA.

~~~
danssig
Why were you ever proud of something that just happened to you having nothing
what so ever to do with any actions you took yourself?

~~~
prodigal_erik
Some people say "proud of X" when they mean "refuse to feel shame about X". It
bugs me a little also.

------
tnuc
I for one feel a lot safer thanks to this blog post from the TSA.

Keep up the great work TSA and thank you for putting my worries to rest.

\-- Do I need to put sarcasm tags?

------
rbanffy
What shocks me most is the abundance of anonymous comments, probably fearful
of how the TSA can make life miserable for them.

------
rythie
In any case, surely the weakest link is airports in less developed countries,
which always seem to be much less secure to me.

~~~
hub_
You work for TSA? 'cause that the kind of reasoning coming from TSA.

~~~
rythie
Is it? I don't much about them since I live in the U.K. it just seems
generally when I've been travelling, mostly to less developed countries, that
the airports aren't really that secure.

------
justanotheratom
Can someone post a link to the viral video they are referring to? I can't seem
to find it (I live in a cave).

~~~
johnx123-up
[http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-
nude-...](http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body-
scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas-
nude-body-scanners/)

------
CF_riseAbove
Methinks thou dost protest too much TSA

------
erode
I've never believed something less than the words in this blog post.

------
hgasdasdgdj
All the comments here sucks ass

"It’s one of the best tools available to detect metallic and non-metallic
items, such as… you know… things that go BOOM. "

If you shat out an emotion frmo that sentence, you too much of a baby to use
the internet, LEAVE.

------
whalesalad
Uhh am I the only one here who isn't planning on reading too deeply into this?
Seems like TSA got pwnt by lulzsec or anonymous?

------
neilmiddleton
"things that go BOOM"

------
shingen
That last paragraph is a doozy.

Completely addresses privacy concerns; is completely safe; oh and hey, it's
completely optional, assuming you don't prefer molestation and possibly
randomly missing your flight.

------
drivebyacct2
> _It is completely safe and the vast majority use a generic image that
> completely addresses privacy concerns._

Well that makes me feel great. Guess they decided they been caught blatantly
lying on that point before so they decided to reiterate it, just with
sufficiently vague qualifiers.

~~~
philwelch
"Vast majority", eh? Yeah, I guess the "vast majority" aren't the young,
attractive women you always hear about them disproportionately scanning.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Is this the case? It's not terribly surprising, I just hadn't seen stats for
that.

------
shingen
The fascinating thing about their claimed 20 layers of security, is also that
a failure by any single layer can result in a terrorist attack succeeding.

They surprisingly don't point that out. (har har)

