
100 Naked Citizens: 100 Leaked Body Scans - ojbyrne
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/giz-scans/
======
macrael
To be clear: these images came from the US Marshals Service scanning people
entering a courthouse in Florida, not from the TSA. The TSA maintains that
their machines are unable to store images: [http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/tsa-
response-to-feds-admit-stori...](http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/tsa-response-to-
feds-admit-storing.html)

These images were not leaked or snuck out by an employee or anything, they
were acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request.

I think the TSA's scanners are an unjustifiable invasion of privacy, but I
think that people should make their arguments with the facts. This article is
shamelessly caching in on people's outrage without really adding much to the
discussion.

The US Marshals' statement on the subject:
<http://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2010/080510a.htm>

~~~
watchandwait
TSA is lying about storage. The machine's specs REQUIRE storage of images in a
"Test Mode", and even allow export of the images through a USB thumb-drive.
Check out pages 10 and 16.

<http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf>

------
bmelton
The scariest thing about this, to me, was seeing how people not even in the
scanner were picked up.

I suppose it's to be expected, since it isn't exactly shielded in the way
you'd expect it to be, but if this thing is just spewing radiation all over
the place, I can't imagine what's going to become of the people that actually
work near it all day long.

My privacy is one thing, and I do a good deal to avoid the Backscatters, but
this is potentially an actual life and death situation that people may not
have even considered, or worse, that is drowned out by all the discussion
about our freedoms.

~~~
detst
In another post, I made the comment that anyone that opts out of going through
these machines should use this fact to plant fear in the minds of TSA agents.

Every one of them should at least be a little concerned about this and it
would be great to see them oppose these machines for their own safety, if
nothing else.

~~~
johnglasgow
You act like TSA agents came up with the idea to grope and body scan everyone
in the airport. This is a huge pain the in ass for them, and they know that it
poses a health risk for themselves. However, this is their job, and they are
carrying out orders from their superiors. So there's no reason to make snide
remarks to the agents.

~~~
detst
> This is a huge pain the in ass for them

I'm sure it is.

> However, this is their job, and they are carrying out orders from their
> superiors.

I fundamentally oppose this reasoning as justification for doing something you
think is wrong.

> So there's no reason to make snide remarks to the agents.

Saying this as you out opt isn't snide: "I'm a little concerned about the
radiation myself but I can't imagine what it's like for you to stand near this
machine all day. It must be worrying".

I would argue that many of these people are told that the machines are
perfectly safe and don't even consider that they are being exposed while
standing outside.

~~~
paulgb
> I fundamentally oppose this reasoning as justification for doing something
> you think is wrong.

Nobody does evil all by themselves. If everyone thought like you do, there
would be less room for evil in the world.

~~~
loewenskind
Exactly. Personally I wish that, legally, using the Nuremberg ("just doing my
job") Defense would get you a much more severe sentence. If no one were
willing to do evil things because "it's their job" most of the biggest
atrocities we can think of couldn't have been committed and we would have
never heard of many of the most evil people in history. None of them could
have accomplished anything all by themselves.

------
mv
heh, this 'leak' probably was on purpose and from a machine that is so
old/blocky/pixilated to make the public see this as a non-issue. The images
leaked look NOTHING like the ones at <http://dontscan.us/> .... If the general
public see this as what is being fought against, they'll probably think it
isn't even worth a fight.

Nevermind that this is _proof_ that the government broke a promise to never
store/transit the information from these machines. That won't raise enough of
a fuss because people are _used_ to being lied to. That and we have a bunch of
spineless politicians backed by spineless scared populace who would trade
every liberty for just a little more 'security'.

Nothing makes me more angry than people who don't want to be responsible for
their own actions.

~~~
AndrewMoffat
The conspiracy theorist in me agrees with you. The quality of these images are
shit, and the first thing that came to my mind was "well these aren't so bad."

------
Ahmes
Free startup idea: wordpress blog giving a $10 bounty per back scatter image
submitted, post adwords, simultaneously profit and raise an uproar.

~~~
dfranke
In what sense is that anything other than bribing government officials?

~~~
sigstoat
what's your point? bribery isn't a one-sided thing. if there are government
officials that'll sell out for $10, we all very much need to find that out
before someone offers them more than $10 for something more valuable than a
nudie pic.

~~~
dfranke
My point is that this business plan is a quick ticket to somewhere where
you'll get a considerably more invasive search than you'd get from the TSA.

------
stretchwithme
Not to worry. The TSA scanners don't store images so there's no way anyone
will every see them.

I saw it on the news. And they even showed one of the images that are
impossible for anyone else to see.

------
Tarski
"While the fidelity of the scans from this machine are of surprisingly low
resolution, especially compared to the higher resolution “naked scanners”"

The pictures don't quite live up to the title of the article.

------
twymer
Originally posted Gizmodo article with some discussion:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1910533>

------
slashcom
These weren't nearly as high resolution as I expected. I'm surprised they're
even useful.

I guess that's encouraging in _one_ aspect.

~~~
pak
This is an older machine, the newer backscatter X-ray type make pictures that
look like this:

[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022861-10391704.htm...](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022861-10391704.html)

Yep, your "junk" is fully visible.

Paparazzi's wet dream... I mean, if the LAPD can't keep pictures of a battered
Rihanna from TMZ[1], wait until Paris Hilton decides to fly commercial through
LAX. (Celebrities can't always afford charter, can they?)

[1] <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,498157,00.html>

~~~
chunkbot
I can't imagine Paris Hilton's backscatter images being all that sensational.
You can find much more detailed images with a cursory search online.

I get your point, though.

------
yatsyk
I bet a number of porn movies are filmed already when these scanners are used
in story :)

------
heyrhett
I counted 8. And these aren't the scans everyone is talking about.

------
waratuman
What! The spec are always right! Always.

