

TSA Out of Our Pants -- FAQ - ddelphin
http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/frequently-asked-questions/

======
grecy
Be sure to read the TSA's official response on their blog. [1] The comments
there are priceless.

[1][http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/03/viral-video-about-body-
scanners....](http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/03/viral-video-about-body-
scanners.html)

~~~
samstave
What morons, they use the word "interwebs" in the first sentence to make
themselves look hip to the internet.

The whole tone of this blog post though really rubs me the wrong way. it comes
across as a post from defensive asshole teen who was caught looking like a
fool, as opposed to a federal agency funded with BILLIONS of free money they
take from the citizens which they spend in ways which are completely
unaccountable to said citizens, and the results of which inconvenience, for no
reason, the same citizens -- with methods which are proven to be lacking to
say the least.

I am so tired of security theater. These people are fucking dolts, amateurs
themselves and are skimming billions of dollars from programs we actually
need; like science, research, education and health.

FUCK the TSA.

~~~
jrockway
Nobody will ever be happy with blog posts. If they wrote it like they were
writing a tax document, someone would say "look at these boobs lawyerizing
every word". If they write it like a kitteh, it's "look at these idiots trying
to be hip". I found the tone funny, but regardless of whether or not they
assume their audience knows what lolcats are, the TSA is still a waste of
money. You don't need to read their blog to know that!

------
newman314
Here's a few FAQ'ish type links:

Body scanner proven ineffective video
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idICUSiGcqo>

Body scanner has 54% false positive rate
[https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-
sca...](https://www.propublica.org/article/sweating-bullets-body-scanners-can-
see-perspiration-as-a-potential-weapon)

Cost of the body scanners
[http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/07/what_tsa_se...](http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/07/what_tsa_securi.html)

Some pretty interesting numbers here:

"Of these, 18 airports handle fewer than 1,000 passengers daily but were
equipped with 21 scanners at an estimated installed cost of $7.3 million to
screen 9,538 passengers per day."

~~~
mikeash
The way the system is set up, all airports are only as secure as the least
secure airport. Once you go through security, you can fly around the country
from one airport to another without going through again. Thus, _if_ the tools
were effective but you somehow made an exception for small airports, you just
invite terrorists to use those small airports for sneaking their weapons
through, which can then be used on bigger, more visible flights later.

I think these machines are a waste of money and the threat of terrorism vastly
overblown in general, but _if_ you make the assumption that the machines are
desirable and useful, you can't make an exception for small airports.

~~~
newman314
But the point is alternate and arguably more effective methods exist,
particularly scaled to a smaller airport. I would say that even if you patted
everyone down at the airport, the cost would be less but that's just
speculation on my part.

However, I would like to post an excerpt from the last link that I shared.

"TSA acknowledges that it takes 10-12 seconds per passenger to go through the
scanner while only 2 seconds is needed for the metal detector. Since the
scanners have a 54% false positive rate, approximately half of those using the
scanners receive some form of pat-down, further slowing the process. When
hundreds of people are in line, that additional 8 to 30 seconds each adds up,
resulting in substantial delays.

So while TSA claims that the scanners speed up the screening process, the
opposite, in fact, is true."

~~~
mikeash
54% is an astonishingly high number. Any idea what the false negative rate is?
I wonder if the scanners are any better than just flipping a coin....

~~~
newman314
Well, a false positive rate of 54% essentially means it is in fact just coin
flipping.

For any other product on the market, a failure rate of 54% would be cause for
a complete recall if not a wholesale scrapping of the product but apparently
does not apply in this case.

~~~
mikeash
You need to know the false negative rate to evaluate it against a coin flip.
For example, a hypothetical machine with a 50% false positive rate but 0%
false negative rate could still be really useful, if the machine itself is
cheap/fast and the subsequent screening slower/more expensive. With such a
machine, you know that the 50% who pass are clean, thus reducing your followup
screening load by half.

Of course, a machine with ~50% false positive and negative rates is
indistinguishable from flipping a coin.

------
apinstein
Why don't they just install a background behind the subject that produces a
checkerboard pattern? This is exactly why programs like Photoshop use a
checkered background to make it trivial to detect transparency in your images.

Wouldn't that render the exploit this guy found obsolete?

~~~
djb_hackernews
Install a background? Photoshop? You do realize that the backscatter machines
aren't taking a picture right? There isn't a "background" to change. It's
basically an X-ray machine, throw some radiation, see what bounces back.

I'll let you figure out why building a backing that is made up of different
materials that reflect radiation in a checkerboard pattern won't work.

~~~
snprbob86
The phrases "You do realize that" and "I'll let you figure out why" are
condescending. The tone of your post is rude. Moreover, you're clearly the one
who doesn't understand: The prior poster was proposing a checker pattern of
_reflective_ material on the background.

------
lonnyk
What are the estimated costs of getting a lawsuit to the Supreme Court?

~~~
wpietri
I'd love to know that too. I just threw in $100 (via the donation button on
the top right of the linked article), but I'm glad to donate more if he needs
it.

I really wish I had time to tilt at this particular windmill, so I'm very
grateful that this fellow is being so relentless.

~~~
tsaoutourpants
Thank you for that! The cost in filing fees, printing, and mailing for SCOTUS
I estimate to be near $2K. If it's accepted, I need to travel to DC for oral
arguments. All this in addition to dozens (or more) hours of missed work in
order to research, write, and handle things.

Even if I got no donations, I would self-fund this suit, so no worries about
donating more... anything anyone wants to contribute is much appreciated!

~~~
wpietri
I'd encourage you to get a professional lawyer with supreme court experience
involved in this. Perhaps the EFF can recommend someone?

------
JVIDEL
2 words: Ethiopian rat

This species can detect all kinds of weapons, explosives, drugs, everything.

It can even tell if a person has a contagious DISEASE.

And best of all its cheaper to train and maintain than dogs, and more
friendly/less intimidating for the passengers.

These are already being used in some African countries to find landmines that
dogs and electronic detectors can't see.

~~~
jacquesm
If you think rats are less intimidating for passengers then I invite you to
test your hypothesis by walking around an airport with a rat on a leash and a
dog on a leash, see what gets the most response.

~~~
JVIDEL
Have you seen the average bomb dog? is not a labradoodle...

And google ethiopian rat, is not that ugly/scary like black rats and others.

~~~
jacquesm
I'm not sure how to compute the average bomb dog but Labradors are in fact
very common sniffer dogs:

[http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-09-30-1Adogs30_ST...](http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-09-30-1Adogs30_ST_N.htm)

Lots of German Shepherds as well and plenty of other breeds. No, the're not
'doodles' but a pack of angry Jack Russels isn't a pic-nick either. The point
is that people are somewhat used to bomb sniffer dogs _because_ they associate
them with the dogs they already know. With rats they will also associate them
with the rats they already know, and that association is not going to be a
good one.

That rat looks like this:

<http://www.viewchange.org/videos/africa-bomb-squad-rats>

So, you'll be testing your rat-on-a-leash in a crowded airport ---->>> there

and meanwhile I'll be

<\-------- over there.

I hate being trampled by screaming tourists.

~~~
JVIDEL
Well look at this way: if you don't like the scanner then you're getting a
very intimate patdown, which depending how you take it could end with a
surprise cavity search.

Now the rat doesn't sounds that bad does it?

------
user2459
What's supremely confusing is that the back scatter machines were meant to
protect us against the growing threat of non-metallic weapons and yet many TSA
demos show how effective they are at finding things like guns and knives. Such
objects would be passively and reliably detected by a metal detector and now
we find they can be easily taken through a back scatter machine.

We've put incomplete tech and massive room for human error in between people
and air planes. It's worse than security theater, it's a full digression in
our our actual security. We're actually less safe than we were 15 years ago.
If this man's video is to be trusted, it's now easier than ever to bring a box
cutter onto an airplane. Boggles the mind.

