
$1B of TSA Nude Body Scanners Made Worthless By Blog  - zotz
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/
======
jballanc
While it's encouraging to see such a thorough debunking of the latest security
theater technology, it's always been security theater... Allow me a few quick
anecdotes:

My family is friends with a gentleman who was a green beret medic during Viet
Nam, and later worked for the CIA. Once, when I was younger (and metal
detectors were the norm), we had the opportunity to fly with him. He entered
the metal detector before me, and was waved along. Once we were past the
detectors, he turned to me and said, "Guess how many blades I have on me?" He
then proceded to produce seven blades. They were a combination of ceramic
blades (undetectable by the metal detector and sharper than most metal as
well) and traditional blades held or placed on him so that they would not set
off the detector. It was part of his CIA training to be able to do that.

I went to college at Stevens Institute of Technology. The Chemical Engineering
department there has a lab known as the Highly Filled Materials Institute.
When I was an undergraduate, I got a tour of the lab. They informed me that
they had been working on an extruder that they were selling simultaneously to
Picatinny Arsenal and Hersey. It turns out that C4 and Chocolate are both
colloidal suspensions with nearly identical properties. A consequence of this
is that in the X-ray machines used in airports, plastic explosives are
indistinguishable from chocolate.

Shortly after 9/11 my father, a very frequent traveler, had forgotten his nail
clippers in his carry-on luggage. Predictably, they were confiscated. When I
greeted him at the airport, he remarked on how ridiculous that was, as he
produced his fountain pen from his jacket pocket. "They let me on with this,"
he said. "I could have stabbed anyone in the eye with this and they'd be dead.
What was I going to do with nail clippers?"

...I could go on, but why?

~~~
finnw
There's a simple explanation - the authorities' main priority is to prevent
_copycat attacks_.

The most embarassing thisg possible for TSA would be an exact repeat of 9/11 -
same weapons (wasn't it box cutters?) etc. So that's what they target first.

A new kind of attack is harder to predict _and_ easier for the authorities to
explain by saying "nothing like this has ever happened before, there was no
way we could have prepared for it." And there's no way they could cover all
possibilities anyway.

And to be fair, copycat attacks do happen (e.g. July 21, 2005 in London) so it
is not a total waste.

~~~
abraxasz
I think that everybody agree on that. The question is: are those very very
expensive scanners the only way to achieve that goal. If it is, then fine (I'm
not american, so it's not my taxes that are blown), but if there is another
way, then you should be worrying about your taxpayer's dollars.

Just as an aside, Ben Gurion airport relies much less on pseudo high tech, and
has had incredibly good result.

([http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199--the-
israel...](http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199--the-
israelification-of-airports-high-security-little-bother))

~~~
darklajid
Anecdotal (at best) evidence from this single person:

No, they use 'pseudo people reading skills'. I'm good at offsetting those
unintentionally. Can lead to hours of fun.

And they use other pseudo tests as well, that tell me that so far none of the
people there checking my laptop had any clues about - computers.

I've never been to the states (and - don't plan to), but I cannot imagine that
the average TSA guy is more grumpy than the average [1] Ben Gurion security
guy.

Don't make 'different' the right thing to do. There is obviously a high demand
for security here, both ~real~ and in the public mindset. Replicating that
world-wide would be just as bad as placing these back-scatter machines
everywhere, in my world..

1: Insert disclaimer about the exceptions to the rule here

~~~
abraxasz
You might be right. What is surprising though is that an airport that's under
such security threat like Ben Gurion airport hasn't been breached in a very
long time (I think the last major problem was in the 70's). Now you're going
to say that most airports are in that situation. Yes, but Ben Gurion is not
any airport, and I think I don't need to explain why it is under much more
pressure than most airports in the world.

Now assuming that you are 100% right, and that Israeli's security protocol is
as much as a mascarade as the TSA's. Then I still believe that they put up a
much much cheaper mascarade than the TSA, and that useless for useless, you
might want to consider the cheapest.

That was just an aside though, I'm still convinced that their security thing
is not just a mascarade.

~~~
dagw
_Then I still believe that they put up a much much cheaper mascarade than the
TSA_

Not even close. Israel spends close to 10 times as much on security pr.
passenger compared to the US. Sure the absolute number is smaller, but that's
because Israeli airports handle ~1 million passengers a year compared to US'
~700 million a year

~~~
alephnil
> Israeli airports handle ~1 million passengers a year

That sounds too few. Even if you only consider individuals rather than flights
that means that less than one in five Israelis flies any given year. Norway,
with about the same population size handles 40 million passengers a year. Now
there is virtually no domestic traffic in Israel because its small size, but
it also has a lot more tourists than Norway.

~~~
dagw
I just rechecked the number and you're right, sorry. The numbers I quoted
where only for El Al (the largest national carrier). The total number of all
airlines is a bit over 13 million. But hey what's an order of magnitude
between friends :)

------
rogerbinns
Just more security theatre and corrupt politicians (guess who runs the
companies the scanners are bought from).

The reality is that they can't keep weapons and drugs out of prisons where
there are no freedoms, and there is plenty of time to be as invasive as you
want to visitors and residents.

Additionally the security system has failed if the point you pick up the bad
guys is by some low paid grunt at the airport staring at a screen. The point
of airport security should be to catch occasional idiots and that is about it
- something any metal detector can do.

The reality is that anyone determined can get through any security system and
wreak terror. The response is to not be terrorised. It is to live well and not
in fear. It is to have made their actions completely pointless.

~~~
raganwald
_Airport security is a stupid idea, it's a waste of money, and it's there for
only one reason: to make white people feel safe! That's all it's for. To
provide a feeling, an illusion, of safety in order to placate the middle
class. Because the authorities know they can't make airplanes safe; too many
people have access. You'll notice the drug smugglers don't seem to have a lot
of trouble getting their little packages on board, do they?......_

—George Carlin, “Airport Security"

~~~
mc32
Isn't the psychology half the battle? You need to convince people there exists
a reasonable effort to provide some sort of security --even if it's more
psychological security than not. In addition, as others have pointed out it's
also to filter against known (easily replicated) attacks.

~~~
rogerbinns
> Isn't the psychology half the battle?

That is why it is known as "security theatre". The wikipedia page is
comprehensive:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater>

~~~
mc32
I mean, that psychologically, it's like a placebo. While it may or may not
actually prevent anything that people believe it does is what's important.

Somewhat similar to crosswalk buttons which don't actually provide jumping the
change of traffic light phase queue.

The term Security Theater sounds dismissive and implies there is no actual
benefit. It seems in the least debatable to me.

~~~
chii
"The term Security Theater sounds dismissive and implies there is no actual
benefit. It seems in the least debatable to me."

it, in fact, does not provide any benefit. Making people "feel" safer, will
only worsen the problem when they finally find out that they aren't actually
safe (due to an attack happening).

~~~
mc32
I would argue making people feel safer (or comfortable) to fly is a benefit
they are willing to trade in for whatever might happen. They have nothing to
lose. If they don't do the "theatrics" people might choose to fly less due to
a perceived lack of security effort. So, in the meantime, while the theatrics
maintain a semblance of security, the airline industry gets the benefit of
doubt.

Once the bubble is burst, that'd be another issue. Still, I think people will
rationalize it as "well, we got X years use out of the system."

Out of curiosity, what _do_ you think has accounted for the safety record?
Obviously you don't believe the theater has helped. At the same time I don't
believe that people (AQ) have not been plotting against transportation assets.
I would ask, why would they abandon that path, if they thought the theater was
just theater? Are there other mechanisms keeping them at bay?

Additionally, even if the theater contributed nothing to security and all the
heavy lifting was accomplished by other means -intel, profiling, whathaveyou,
the theater would act as a signal to travelers that _something_ was being
done. It would be the customer-facing expression of the work being done behind
the scenes --a kind of proxy so that what's actually being done --methods and
so forth could remain opaque.

~~~
snom360
I think the main reason for the safety record is that there just aren't that
many terrorists out there. Of course, increased security raises the bar, so it
would be more appropriate to say that there aren't that many terrorists out
there with the resources and skills to pull off an attack.

But if airport security actually hindered many real attempts, why don't we
hear about them?

Right up until 9/11 you could ask the same question, what accounts for the
safety record? After all, many years had passed without any hijackings or
bombings.

Then the bubble burst, and the only possible response was to increase security
measures. Any politician not supporting such measures would have been torn
apart by the media if a new attack had occured.

I think that airport security _does_ provide a deterrence to unskilled
terrorists, and it provides real security against some random mentally
unstable guy trying to wreak havoc.

I think everyone agrees that security theatre helps people feeling safe. It's
the amount of money being spent on it that is at issue. We'd all be safer if
the money spent on ineffective body scanners were being spent on making roads
safer, or perhaps by building more schools and hospitals in areas of political
conflict.

------
tsaoutourpants
Hi Guys, Jon here, the creator of the TSA video you're discussing. Thanks for
picking this story up. As a tech guy myself, I'll be happy to answer any
questions you have.

\--Jon

~~~
spolsky
Is it possible that the TSA actually observed the metallic object at your
side, but decided that it wasn't threatening based on its shape?

~~~
capnrefsmmat
The TSA generally detects my watch when I forget to take it off, and insist on
rolling up my sleeve and checking despite its obvious location.

I'm not sure how shape could imply safety, either, since anything could have
been concealed inside of it.

~~~
pizza
Well, what about the Casio F91-W?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F91W#Claimed_use_in_terro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F91W#Claimed_use_in_terrorism)

------
ck2
You have to be crazy brave or crazy ignorant to do this kind of analysis and
share it in the USA.

At a minimum his name will now show up on the no-fly list for the rest of his
life. If he realized this, I am in awe.

~~~
tsaoutourpants
Crazy guy who did this here. Before I made the video, I spent the last 18
months manipulating the court system against the TSA. The TSA does not want to
add me to any no-fly list (or more realistically, the "selectee list") because
every time a legal battle starts, I'm entitled to more and more discovery in
court, and more and more of their lies come out.

\--Jon

~~~
tsaoutourpants
You guys are very welcome... I appreciate the support, and I feel like on this
board it's coming from my own people, so thank you!!

~~~
ktizo
This may not be the ideal forum for lighthearted sillyness, but I still think
you have won 1000 internets and a life supply of adorable kittens. Well done
;)

~~~
MrMan
You are lucky that this thread is about a vaguely tech-related external topic.
In any thread where money was at stake, you would be down-voted for making it
more difficult for money and entrepreneurs to find each other.

In the future please limit your comments to topics _relevant_ to the ongoing
tech bubble and attendant charlatanism.

~~~
ktizo
I am really, really sorry for risking upsetting the frictionless flow of money
in the pursuit of comedy.

------
TamDenholm
Rather than get rid of the body scanners, i think they'll simply just require
you to stand sideways as well, or add a scanner on the side of the machine.

~~~
tsaoutourpants
Creator of the video here. The other posters are correct that it's not simply
a color change, it's that the backscatter effect reflects similarly from the
object as it does from the wall of the device. There are no quick fixes:
standing sideways might work, but now screening time doubles (which is
actually a big deal to the TSA), the radiation dose doubles, and the machine's
software isn't designed for that. There are different scanner manufacturers
that have made machines that address this problem, but do so with 5 scans -- 5
times the radiation. Plus, there are other faults to the nude body scanners,
and this is just the one I chose to publish. The scanners need to go.

~~~
seanp2k2
Also, if you're NOT opting out of every scan, you're not helping the cause.
You NEED to opt out of every single scan every chance you get, otherwise
they'll eliminate the option and say "well, people seem to be OK with this
since no one is opting out!"

Opted out at SFO and DTW and each time it was no big deal.

~~~
jedbrown
I go through security an average of about four times a month. I opt out any
time I'm not in danger of missing a flight. Some airports are friendly and
expedient about it, others (most recently, Austin) had me wait for about
fifteen minutes before finding someone to do the pat down (while I tried to
watch my bag/laptop/phone on the other side of the scanner).

~~~
saryant
I opted-out at SEA a few weeks ago and four old British ladies on their way
home stared at me the entire time. They looked rather horrified.

Not sure if they thought I was a terrorist or if they were as disgusted by the
whole situation as I was.

------
GigabyteCoin
I once got "sharp weapons" (a manicure kit) through London's Heathrow airport.

I was connecting from Shanghai and had stupidly left a souvenir manicure kit
in my bag... they found it, but after some pleading allowed me to keep it.

As per usual, I picked up a bottle of liquor at the duty free in Shanghai
before I left...

Not sure if I was meant to inform them I was connecting, or they simply forgot
to do their jobs... but apparently I was meant to have my liquor in a sealed
"official duty free" bag when I landed at heathrow.

Long story short, I got the full attention of about 10 security officers when
checking through security in Heathrow. They were entirely concerned with the
liquor I had purchased in shanghai, and were so vocal about the whole thing
that I personally witnessed the xray machine man turn around and see what the
problem was.

Everybody was trying to be the next big hero, when the only problem was I
didn't have the right security bag, and who knows what else I might have had
in my carry on? (Hint: I had "weapons", I mean nailclippers).

------
ars
Summary: The background around the person is black in the scanner.

Place the object slightly distant from the person so it's also in the
background (i.e. not silhouetted by the person), and the object and the
background will look the same to the scanner.

------
mark_l_watson
A pretty good video, but it is not quite convincing enough for me to email to
family and friends. Still, kudos to the guy who did it.

BTW, the first time I went through the backscatter scanner, I had a killer
sinus headache within about 30 seconds. I went from feeling great to shitty
almost instantly. Anyone else experience this? I have refused (opted out of)
the scanner ever since. My many opt-out experiences have all been OK: a quick
personal search and I am on my way. That is what I recommend to my friends and
family to do.

BTW, part 2: the TSA corporation employees at the security checkpoints are not
the problem, so be polite to them. The problem is the bribery and corruption
that lead to the privatization of airport security.

~~~
hoganheros
_"the TSA corporation employees at the security checkpoints are not the
problem"_

Yes, they are. "Just following orders" does not hold any water:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#Nuremberg_Trial...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#Nuremberg_Trials_after_World_War_II)

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a
superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law,
provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

 _"so be polite to them"_

No, THEY should be polite to ME. They are public servants.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Why do so few people get this? Why, for example, do people continue to insist
"the war is unjust, but I still support our soldiers"?

~~~
gruseom
They're the same soldiers we would expect to fight the just wars. It's not as
if they're the ones starting these things.

------
nivertech
TSA should use MRI scanners - no radiation exposure and no metal objects are
allowed.

As an added bonus they can use fMRI mode and ask following questions:

    
    
        1. Are you a member of a terrorist organization?
        2. Where is the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

~~~
catch23
Standing near a MRI machine is also likely to erase the magnetic material on
any of your credit cards -- plus they could never shut off the machine.
There's probably a bunch more obvious reasons why MRI was never chosen.

And if some metal object were to get stuck on the machine, they'd need a team
of people to remove it. Every airport would also need to keep a good stock of
liquid helium for the cases where machines need to be shut down.

------
togasystems
I wonder if the color of the background is a simple variable or is based off
physics rules? Does anybody know if they can change the color to something
different?

~~~
ars
I think it's checking how many x-rays are reflected back to the machine.

But since the background and the object are both metal they both reflect
equally, and are indistinguishable.

~~~
ynniv
The background is not metal, it is open space that does not reflect xrays. The
targeted metal objects also do not reflect xrays.

It is more intuitive to say that these machines are not threat detectors (like
metal detectors), they are people detectors. The lack of a person is
considered to be a threat within the bounds of their silhouette. Place a
threat outside the silhouette and it is undetectable.

~~~
mc32
So what would happen if they had a wire mesh (chicken wire, for example) for
the background? An interruption in the wire mesh pattern would indicate an
anomaly. They could change up the pattern every so often to thwart any attempt
to match the pattern --even if it woud be difficult to match up.

~~~
ynniv
The scanner images both sides of a person at the same time. To add a
background, you would have to have two poses from the same side, effectively
halving throughput and complicating the imaging procedure.

------
borski
Simple, yet brilliant; equivalent to a side channel attack on most systems. I
can't believe nobody had noticed that before, including myself.

------
geuis
The supposition here is that since magnetic scanners are being removed and
replaced with xray scanners, which do not have the feature of detecting metal
with magnetic fields, the new machines are more ineffective than the old
magnetic scanners. This therefore single-handedly invalidates the xray
machines and they should be removed.

The entire video is produced in such a way as to say this is a major discovery
and that it will single-handedly trigger Congress and the TSA to backpedal on
what they've been for the last 10+ years.

I disagree.

To state, I do not like the TSA. I do not like Congress very much. I have very
little respect for the people that are commonly elected to government because
of the long history of ineffectiveness, ignorance, and stupidity that
continually seeps out when they talk and make "decisions". The best I can say
about our government is that it mostly keeps the _really_ bad people out of
power. The kind that become Caesars and Napoleons and Hitlers and Pol Pots.

My issues with this video are that its too filled with a political tilt. There
is a clear play on emotions and rhetoric with less emphasis on the purported
vulnerability being shown.

Further, the actual nut of the video, i.e. the demonstration of the
vulnerability, is so underwhelming that its impossible to take the video in
its entirety seriously. First, the most important part where the speaker is
actually going through security is sped up past the point of being
intelligible. That's the part that might actually get some interest.

If the speaker just showed that clip in its entirety, demonstrating how to
attach the pocket and further how easy it is for him to get through the
scanners, and providing pure technical notes as to the background color and
such, it would be easier to take seriously.

As it stands, any reasonably competent person's first thought should be "So we
just put a magnetic scanner before or after the x-ray scanner. Ok, problem
solved." Other thoughts might be, ok so make people stand sideways, change the
background color, etc. Obvious tweaks to the system to patch over this
problem.

The video doesn't address this simple point and goes on to argue that no metal
detectors invalidates the entire concept of xray scanners. Its a very bad
premise to base such an argument on.

The argument against xray scanners needs to be based around the already-proven
points:

    
    
        *Violates people's privacy
        *Security theater (which the Pocket Problem falls into)
        *Possible negative health consequences for passengers and workers
        *Over-reaching government bureaucracy 
        *Etc.
    

So in summary, I _don't_ like this video because it shows nothing really new,
makes a large claim on very little foundation, focuses attention on the wrong
things, and is counter-productive to the task of convincing enough "policy
makers" to start doing the right thing.

~~~
einhverfr
I also agree there is too much political stuff in the video (which I pointed
out when I shared it on facebook). A simpler argument against the scanners is
that they _fundamentally_ are less effective at detecting major threats than
are metal detectors. Thus whatever minimal security holes they close, they
open up larger ones. Moreover these are inherent in the technology so it isn't
a question of just fixing a few things.

I am not entirely anti-AIT. I think the machines can have a place, for those
for whom there is some reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing, and following a
metal detector. But the way they are implemented poses severe privacy and
security problems, as if someone decided you could solve security problems by
buying fancy machines (an unfortunately common problem).

The problem is that as long as the federal government sets standards for
airport security, this will be a problem. It doesn't matter if it is the TSA
or the NTSB making these decisions--- big corporations will pay lobbyists to
get the message to them that their machines are better than the old stuff and
therefore should be used in this way. It matters even less if the TSA agents
are doing the screening or not, except that with them monopolizing that market
there are fewer voices against.

~~~
zotz
> I also agree there is too much political stuff in the video

An honest question: How does one de-politicize an obvious political topic?

~~~
_delirium
It's not so much de-politicizing (as you say, it's inherently political), but
how much editorializing commentary you add on top of it. It's somewhat a
matter of taste, but I think the same content could've been conveyed with less
editorializing, which would've made it easier to share with people not
politically predisposed to agree.

------
lojack
Every time I've gone through the new scanners, I've had to go through a metal
detectors first, which would pick up this object. Anyone know if there are
actually airports that use only the new scanners without a metal detector?

~~~
martingordon
As far as I can recall, people were not required to go through the metal
detectors at these airports: MIA, FLL, BNA, EWR, PIT. MIA (at least last time
I was there in December) has some lines that do solely metal detectors and
some that do solely scanners. That is, until the scanner lines start to get
long and they start putting everyone through the metal detectors.

I've always opted out (except once at EWR when I was with a large group and
the screener took longer than the 5 minutes I was willing to wait) and about
half the time I've gone through the metal detectors. In fact, last week at
PIT, I tried going through the metal detector on my way to the pat down area
and was told to go around it.

------
yason
It has never been about real security. It's about the huge load of money that
is funnelled through TSA who are set to spent it all, regardless of what they
receive, on these magic wand devices or just angry personnel. Another reason
is that security checks allow for arbitrary control of passengers. It's a
powerful mechanism, just like a country with enough laws to make everyone
guilty but where those laws are only enforced when "necessary", on a select
few people. It's like legalized totalitarianism: all backed up by law and
rules but the outcome is the same.

------
api
One word: lobbyists.

Nearly _everything_ of this type is a giveaway to some private vendor with
lobbyists in Washington. Whether it works or not is secondary to the primary
purpose: handing money over.

------
tlrobinson
So now they'll just require two scans, one turned 90 degrees.

How hard would it be to construct a prosthetic fat suit that's invisible to
scanners? I bet not very.

------
chrischen
His statement about no one boarding a plane in the US with explosives seems to
be false:
[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/underwe...](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-16/underwear-
bomber/53115186/1).

Although he seems to be right that the detectors are useless since the guy who
was pretty incompetent (set his underwear on fire) and still managed to get it
on board a plane.

~~~
saalweachter
The "underwear bomber" boarded in Amsterdam; the plane was an international
flight _to_ Detroit.

------
russell_h
Does the scanner not pick the object up at all (I don't see why this would be
true), or is this simply a matter of needing to change the background color?

~~~
ars
> Does the scanner not pick the object up at all (I don't see why this would
> be true)

The object and the background both look the same in reflected x-rays. It's not
just the background color.

~~~
russell_h
In that case, couldn't they put a non-reflective material behind the person
being scanned?

Perhaps that would interfere with their ability to scan you from both sides,
but if they have a reflective material behind you it seems like they must
already have a way to scan through/around that.

------
bstpierre
It's interesting how so much is focused on _airport_ security. Let's assume
that we figured out how to make airline terminals 100% terrorist-safe and
completely secure, no exceptions. (Yeah, it's a fantasy, but stay with me...)

At that point the terrorists will give up on the airports and pick something
different. Remember that the first attack on the WTC, and the (domestic!)
attack on OK City were TRUCK bombs. What's to stop someone from hijacking a
tanker truck and detonating it? Trucker school _must_ be easier than pilot
school, right?

And if the terrorists are still hot and heavy for airplanes, they could bring
down an airplane without actually going through airport security. At most
airports I know of, the planes are vulnerable to ground-based attack on
takeoff and landing. Not the same as crashing one into a building, but it
seems unlikely that that attack is repeatable.

------
alan_cx
I have a great solution to this. Its cheap and easy to set up. Just tell
people that planes are a bit dangerous and might well be stacked with
terrorists and bombs. Fly at own risk. Be grateful if you land. No? Oh well.

In all seriousness though, I do wonder given the above, how much passenger
numbers would drop. Flying is known to be very safe, and there was a statistic
that showed more people died after 9/11 than in 9/11 due to people taking to
the roads through fear of flying. Plus, there are not that many planes blown
out of the sky by terrorists. If they did nothing, planes would still be
statistically safe. Its kinda like those stats that show people drive in a
more reckless manner because they now have to wear seat belts and have air
bags etc. Take that lot away and people tend to drive safer.

No, Im not suggesting and of this, just food for thought.

------
sushantsharma
I find it a little strange that, at present, more than 400 people have upvoted
the link, but the linked youtube video has less than 400 views.

Edit: I am not trolling. It was just an observation that I found interesting
even though it may not directly add much to the conversation.

~~~
barrkel
Popular videos stop having their view count immediately updated at around 300
views. There's probably some duplication / distribution that kicks in to
spread the load, and reliable statistics then requires aggregation. Happens
very predictably on new videos in some of my YT subscriptions.

------
bicknergseng
The introduction to <i>Thinking, Fast and Slow</i> by Daniel Khaneman
immediately made me think of security theater. He starts by discussing how
humans are generally rational, but intense emotions of fear, anger, etc. often
cause us to act completely irrationally. While I imagine the book goes on to
describe how the individual can stop emotion from perverting what should be a
rational judgement, I wonder what defense we have as a society against making
bad, emotional decisions on things that shouldn't involve emotions. I
understand reactionary emotional decisions and opinions tending to snowball
behind them, but why does it take so long, if at all, for rationality to take
over?

------
njtotten
I am a frequent flier and hate this stuff as much as the next guy, but doesn't
this just argue (from the TSA point of view) that the TSA should be using BOTH
the metal detector and the body scanners?

------
petenixey
I for one would just like to take a moment to welcome our new guests, the
intelligence observers!

May you be inspired by the quality of debate and not may you not add any of
the good HN folks to any lists.

------
fab13n
Most people with critical thinking are hardly surprised by this; this needs to
be shown to average Joes, not hackers.

Hence I suggest to vote this up on YouTube, rather than / in addition to HN.

------
thewisedude
My guess is in the future...you will have to walk through both metal detectors
and body scanners! I am not sure, if they will dump the body scanners based on
this video!

------
tuxguy
From Bruce Schneier's blog scheier.com

FBI Special Agent and Counterterrorism Expert Criticizes the TSA
<http://gmancasefile.blogspot.in/2012/01/tsa-fail.html>

([http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/02/fbi_special_ag...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/02/fbi_special_age.html#comments))

------
aaronharnly
Interesting video.

However, I would like to have seen a controlled experiment – i.e., with the
same metallic case placed in a breast pocket. Trials with only that variable
changed, and yielding a different result (presumably being pulled for
patdown?) would more conclusively demonstrate the hypothesis that with the
side-pocket technique "anyone can beat them with virtually no effort."

------
Sniffnoy
Not made worthless -- revealed as worthless.

------
hippich
I can tell you what will happen next - instead of shutting down the whole
nude-scanner program, more money will be fed into developing enhanced version
of nude-scanner with built-in metal detector. All old scanner will be scraped,
more billions will be pushed toward TSA to buy more nude-scanner upgrades.

------
samspot
Seems like they should just combine Body Scanners + Metal Detectors + Pat
Downs. A weakness in one tech doesn't make the whole stack worthless.

Please don't interpret this comment as approval of the body scanners or the
pat downs. I'm just trying to express that the body scanners have not been
"made worthless".

------
queensnake
It's even easier. I was carrying a metal external hard drive, put it through
the belt with no problem. You could easily take out the HD and put some
explosives in there instead.

 _edit_ Also, if combining fluids really is a threat, they're allowing liquid
medicine bottles, now. It really /is/ theater.

~~~
vidarh
I've had bottles of liquid in my carry on several times by accidents - what
happens when you travel alone with a toddler and get slightly frazzled.
They've never caught it.

------
afterburner
So they should keep using the metal detectors then. I wonder if they'll make
people go through both.

~~~
URSpider94
The ONLY way that they've been able to sell this to fliers is that it gets rid
of the existing process, and maybe some time soon we'll be able to keep our
shoes on.

If they now make this sequential, then it's twice the time, twice the staff to
manage, and twice the inconvenience -- you now have people queueing up between
the two screens, passing one and failing the other, etc.

------
pseingatl
Curiously, once upon a time the U.S. federal courts considered a police crotch
grab offensive behavior:

[http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/oswald-blake-leonard-
ea...](http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/oswald-blake-leonard-eason-
defendants-37283218)

------
nizm
In case some of you haven't seen this video.

Live on Germany TV man walks through body scanner and builds explosive with
everything that passed on the scanner.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo>

~~~
mikecaron
He also said that in airports, a full scan also scans the sides of the person,
in which case the video producer would not have gotten through. So... how
often is a "Full" scan done?

------
downx3
Sadly I don't think the scans are their to protect lives, but rather to
protect the machinery (and the industry.) Planes are expensive. It's trivial
to kill people elsewhere. I just loathe the rhetoric.

------
eta_carinae
All he did to prove his point was smuggle a small empty metallic case in his
pocket and he expects all the airports to take down their scanners as a
result... Makes total sense.

------
astrofinch
It wouldn't be hard to get a profile view of airline passengers by having them
spin or installing additional scanners. Not that I disagree with this guy.

------
yaix
Just hope that somewone will be helt accountable for it. Anyway, the link to
the relevant xkcd:

<http://xkcd.com/651/>

------
charlieok
...so what if they get images from four sides instead of two. Doesn't that
defeat the "side" method demonstrated in the video?

------
cpursley
What really blows my mind is that Bin Laden pulled 911 off with about $400,000
- about the price of about two porno scanners.

------
nimrodreader
so, if i face the scanner frontally, and the object is on my side, the object
can be lost in my contour. then the TSA guy says, "rotate to right". now that
object hidden on my side might as well have been taped to my forehead - what
was lost in contour is now nicely in silhouette. or, i go through metal
detector first, then get scanned.

no big deal?

------
Vixter
If the TSA has to investigate abnormalities with a pat down, you might as well
opt for the groping to begin with.

------
dirkdk
good thing you are hosting your blog on wordpress.com. Hope they keep it
available!

------
alinspired
it's amazing how all governments, and monopolies are alike, whether it's US or
not

they will get away with it, until smacked really hard - which is almost
impossible to do

------
mikejestes
What if the scanners actually take a 360 degree xray?

------
poppysan
$1B saved by having them take a side profile shot...

------
mikeklaas
Thanks. Now they'll just make us do both.

------
joshwprinceton
most ptz ever?

------
joezhou
epic fail indeed...

------
jQueryIsAwesome
To everyone saying that now they will make you turn sideways i have to tell
you that there are many blind spots even with those two angles, think about
"corners" of yourself.

An example: <http://imgur.com/Q1DTp> (The rolled paper represents some sort of
tube)

The point is that many angles are required (or another kind of "solution")

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
Looks like someone could put it under their skin and the metal object will go
unnoticed; heck! a terrorist could use someone else's skin...

------
georgieporgie
While I think the TSA is ridiculous, can't this be solved by having the people
stand at 45 degrees to the left or right, chosen at random?

~~~
discountgenius
That's too smart an idea. Get ready for four images instead of two. And then
when somebody sneaks something past that, we'll go eight.

------
impunity
I always thought that the purpose of the scanners was to catch currency
entering and leaving the country, not to catch terrorists.

------
gringomorcego
Nobody's gonna mention Snow Crash? Really? Come on guys...

------
robgibbons
All they have to do is make you turn sideways. This video is a well intended
but weak attempt

~~~
brunomiranda
They do not make you turn sideways.

------
antonej
What a bizarre obsession. The only reason this is at the top of HN is because
the word "nude" is (misleadingly) in there.

Obviously airline security in the US is deeply flawed because look at how many
planes are being hijacked or blown out of the sky by terrorists! I mean there
have been -- wait, let me count -- ZERO on American soil since September 11,
2001. With about 28,000 commercial flights _per day_ in the US alone,
approximately 3,800 days after 9/11, that multiplies out to 106 million fights
without a successful terrorist attack. Not a bad batting average if you ask
me.

With apologies to Churchill, I guess this airline security regime is the worst
system there is -- except for all the other systems.

~~~
andolanra
1\. "Nude Body Scanners" is a common name for the backscatter machines, and is
generally understood as such. I'm not sure if you're asserting that people are
randomly upvoting this article on the off chance it contains naughty material,
but quite a few people—here and elsewhere—are heavily interested and involved
in the TSA's use of these machines due to their isolated and cumulative
effects on civil rights, so it shouldn't be surprising that it's at the top.

2\. The TSA is not the only system keeping terrorists off planes. We don't
have a "double-blind survey" where half the airports were protected by the TSA
and the other half weren't, so we can't make any kind of sensible comparison.
(A better metric would be, "How many attempted terrorist attacks were directly
_stopped_ by the TSA during the airport security checks," and it's widely
accepted that the answer is, "None.")

3\. These new backscatter machines were not put in place immediately in 2001.
A great deal of the time you've mentioned involved elevated security on the
part of the TSA, but not specifically through the measures being discussed
here, which _decrease_ the actual security of the planes by allowing people to
bring items through that would have been caught by earlier measures (c.f. the
article being discussed.) A case can be made that the TSA's post-9/11 response
has been useless and possibly harmful, but this article is specifically making
the point that the backscatter machines are problematic.

4\. There have also been zero hijackings in _other_ countries, as well, and
those countries have different (and usually much less invasive and less
expensive) security measures. If we provisionally accept that it _is_ the TSA,
and not the other agencies involved, that is preventing attacks, why does it
necessarily follow that the _only way_ to keep planes safe is the drastic
measures taken by the TSA? (I can quite easily rid my house of mosquitos by
burning it down, but that doesn't mean the _only_ or _best_ way to keep my
house free of mosquitos is arson.)

