Ask HN: Please critique backscatter argument

It's a direct violation of the 4th amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches. I'm not sure what could be more unreasonable than having to choose between being in a nude photo or having your dick groped by a high school drop out just so that you can visit your grandparents for the holidays.

Not at all. How does this statement have any basis? Where in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to air travel? You don't have to fly. In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything.

This argument is a distraction from the root problem that government is involved in something they shouldn't - citizens traveling freely in their own country. Only when government gets involved in something do rights and other issues like this start getting murky. If a private company ran airport security and SFO demanded you do a body scan, you would go to OAK or SJC. No chance of doing that when government's involved. Even if state government was in charge, you could decide to fly out of JFK or Newark based on preferences.

The TSA at its core is a blatant violation of the 10th amendment. In case you aren't familiar (most people aren't and for some reason most people don't care): The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Arguments like this are a distraction from the core point that the federal government should never have been involved in this at all.

>Where in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to air travel?

Right here in the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The ninth probably should have come first, because that worldview is far more important than any list of specific rights. A free man does as he pleases.

I agree with you. But now that government is meddling, the waters get murky. All of a sudden it's your government telling you that you cannot fly and not United Airlines or SFO simple refusing service to a customer or two.

If nude scanning is a constitutional infraction, why didn't anyone mention this in response to the 'unreasonable searches and seizures' of my 'effects' (x-ray'ing my personal belongings, rummaging through my bag, etc etc) that has been going on for decades?

If you only focus your outrage on this trivial, narrow issue, you are being played.

It's the word "unreasonable".

Regular x-rays and metal detectors can be shown to have stopped a very large proportion of items immediately threatening to passenger safety, and are thus to be considered reasonable. Backscatter have no such advantage (in fact, it seems unlikely they could even have stopped 9/11) and are therefore considered unreasonable.

YMMV, but I don't consider myself "played" for subjecting myself to the less intrusive searches. I do feel like an idiot having to pull out my laptop and toothpaste and having to throw out any drinks.

"Regular x-rays and metal detectors can be shown to have stopped a very large proportion of items immediately threatening to passenger safety"

By that logic however, x-rays machines and metal detectors should never have been permitted in the first place because when they were first introduced they had no track record of utility either. You're right that it's the definition of the word "unreasonable" that's the sticky issue, but I don't think that it's as clear cut as you say it is..

This is exactly what I have been saying. I don't really understand why no one thinks this is a problem. I remember asking my mother as a kid why they were allowed to do that (having learned my Bill of Rights). She's a prosecutor, so I figured she knows the law. she said (and still does) that it is all there for our protection. If I was going to blow something up, I'd use a bus, train, or even the security line at the airport. Why bother with getting through security?

I'm not sure about international travel, but searches for domestic flights are unconstitutional.

Now, how do we effectively fight that?

Why bother getting through security indeed. There are plenty of targets available to would be terrorists. Airport security has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the self interest of bloated bureaucracy and government contractors. One of the driving forces behind the body scanners is the Chertoff Group, owned by the former Homeland Security secretary. Security measures are a money grab and mechanism for keeping people fearful and obedient, not a way of keeping anyone safe.

But once again, that presupposes flying in an airplane a fundamental human right.

And if it is, is flying on a commercial airliner a human right? You can avoid the search by volunteering to pay more to fly on a private jet.

And if flying is a human right why can't I make a homemade airplane and fly whenever and wherever I want, without registering a flight plan with the FAA? Or use a jetpack?

> But once again, that presupposes flying in an airplane a fundamental human right.

No.

Thought experiment: Where in the constitution does it say that it's a fundamental human right to use laptops? Now, what do you think the supreme court would have to say about congress deciding you have to deposit an unencrypted copy of your hard drive every week with the Laptop Safety Agency?

Just like Congress can regulate laptops in the interest of public safely, they can regulate air travel in the interest of public safety. But in neither of those situation can they subject citizens to unreasonable searches, no matter if the constitution mentions neither laptops or airplanes.

You don't think the LSA would violate the first ammendment?

OK, we can see where you are going. Where is it stated driving a car is a fundamental right?

As I alluded to several posts down, I don't think it is. Lets pick a random fundamental human right: Free expression.

If you lived in a society that:

  + Required you to take a test and get a license to execute your rights.

  + Included arbitrary age restrictions for this license.

  + Required you to carry this license (a.k.a. "your papers") to exercise this right.

  + Only allowed you to use equipment that was registered with the government and met various government standards.

  + Required periodic inspections of said equipment.

  + Required you to buy insurance.

  + Could revoke said right if you broke particular laws.

  + Could setup random checkpoints to insure you weren't under the influence of drugs.

To exercise you rights of free expression...

Any number of human rights and civil liberties organizations would be going crazy. And although some of these organizations may be against some of these restrictions, like random checkpoints, I don't see any legitimate organizations decrying the idea of licensing drivers.

Your right to drive is in an entirely different class than 'fundamental' rights.

Actually you can drive what you want and in whatever way you want on your own road. It's the road that's regulated, not you or your car. You cannot use the public road without a test and a license, you have to have insurance to drive alongside other cars, etc. etc.

But once again, you don't need permission to exercise fundamental rights anywhere in a civilized country.

If I'm on a public sidewalk, the default assumption is that I can pass out whatever pamphlets I want. That I can spew out whatever tirades I want to. Even if I'm in the KKK. Because I have a fundamental right to free expression and freedom of the press.

I can do this anywhere in the US. The only time I can get into trouble is if I'm conflicting with someone else' fundamental rights. If I do this at a Walmart, they can kick me out because of their own property rights. But even then, they're not saying I can't express myself, I just can't do it on their property. I can go to the public sidewalk in front of the store and they can't do jack.

I can be one of those assholes that stands on the sidewalk outside of a funeral home and say that this marine is dead because God hates gay people. And when the dad sues me, he'll lose, because I have a fundamental right to free speech.

On a public road, the default assumption is that I'm forbidden from driving unless I've met several criteria first. You start with the assumption that by default I'm not allowed to drive on a public road. And I'm only granted that right (or privilege) once I've established that I'm qualified and safe and using an approved vehicle. Not a fundamental right.

I can do this anywhere in the US. The only time I can get into trouble is if I'm conflicting with someone else' fundamental rights. If I do this at a Walmart, they can kick me out because of their own property rights. But even then, they're not saying I can't express myself, I just can't do it on their property. I can go to the public sidewalk in front of the store and they can't do jack.

Except that isn't really true. Try doing that on a public sidewalk in a residential neighborhood at 1AM. Your going to run into trouble. The Supreme Court has long held that certain restrictions of speech are acceptable. We're all familiar with shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, but the court has heard countless variations. Much of the courts rulings on the first amendment have clearly been in trying to establish a line between the reasonable restriction while preserving the intent of the amendment.

For instance, the supreme court has dealt with exotic dancing on a few occasions. They've held that the exotic dancing is a form of speech (expression) and therefore subject to first amendment protection. However, at the same time they've consistently allowed for limits on that expression. Including cases like Erie vs. Paps (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1161.ZO.html) in which the court held that the city of Erie could enact certain controls over nude dancing (reversing a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision).

The point being that in the United States there is no such thing as a 'universal right'. The bill of rights lays out fundamental principles, and the courts are responsible for figuring out how best to satisfy those principles in the real world.

You are not allowed to stand in the middle of a busy public street and pass out pamphlets. Likewise you are not allowed to drive on the road without a license. I don't think you can make your distinction between "fundamental" rights and other rights based on what you can do on a sidewalk.

I don't buy the argument that since flying is not a "fundamental human right" makes it ok for the government to flout the 4th amendment in this particular circumstance.

It would be just as egregious if federal employees were stationed for pat downs and full body scans at the World Series or your local Halloween parade. No pat down, no trick or treat for you!

I find all the Republican arguments that begin with "the constitution applies, except when..." a bit disturbing, frankly.

I'm not a supporter of the TSA by any means, but if you're going to enforce the ninth amendment completely literally, you can just come up with more and more ridiculous examples of things that we're doing now that are completely unconstitutional.

What specifically enumerated power allows the federal government to create the FDA, robbing me of my right to sell food with ground glass in it, or to sell pills that give you cancer?

What specifically enumerated power allows them to rob me of my right to pour radioactive sludge into a river that's on my property?

If you want to take the Super-libertarian Ron Paul approach, and say they shouldn't be doing these things, that's fine. But that strict interpretation of the Ninth Amendment isn't in practice today.

Fortunately, the Constitution allows for subsidiary levels of government to make all the criminal and civil codes they need while restraining the federal government from arbitrary overreach.

But I am in a statistical minority that cares about laws being enforced as written. Most of the country is fine with the government having whatever powers it finds expedient at the moment.

What terrible examples.

The FDA, as discussed in the Boat Captain thread, is entirely unnecessary. One potential option, as mentioned, was tort liability for all things not disclosed when the pills were sold.

Clearly defined water rights would more than properly solve number two.

Learn something about other political views before making ridiculous statements. There's no need to write it off by citing some Christian quasi-libertarian who for some reason liberals have adopted as the poster child of libertarianism. Probably just to defame it in the minds of mindless liberal voters.

Uh, I'm aware of other political views. But unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn't subscribe to them, and won't in the foreseeable future. We can argue all we want about what the Ninth Amendment means, but things like the FDA aren't going to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court anytime soon. They'd say it falls under the vague "interstate commerce" clause. And they'd say the same thing for the FAA.

Right. If "flying" isn't a fundamental human right, then neither is "driving", or even "walking to the shops".

You need a license to drive a car.

You don't need a license to write a book, publish a newsletter, to form some sort of organization and assemble, etc...

Your license can be revoke if (for example) you get too many DUIs.

Your rights to freedom of the press, expression, assembly, etc, can't be revoked.

I'm lead to understand that in most cities you do need a permit to hold a demonstration.

First, good luck driving to Hawaii or Alaska.

Second, while air travel isn't mentioned, the constitution, as I understand it, applies to everything the federal government might do, and since TSA is a federal agency, what it can and can't do is very much governed by the constitution. Random searches of people driving cars are unconstitutional, even if the constitution doesn't grant you the right to drive. After all, you could walk to (almost) anywhere in the US, right?

If Wal-Mart decided to put up these scanners, it could very well be illegal, but it would never be unconstitutional.

In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything.

Unless you are within 100 miles of the coast or border. http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...

I think the first sentence is important enough to pull out on its own:

Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

Which unfortunately includes my hometown in Vermont (as well as anywhere remotely close to it).

I've been stopped at border-patrol checkpoints 100 miles by driving (so shorter as the crow flies) from the border before. It's certainly "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment context.

    In fact, you can drive between any two places
    in the US and never be searched or questioned
    or anything.

Unless you run into a DUI checkpoint...

Or drive into California, with it's agricultural inspection stations on each highway.

I've often wondered what they would do if they saw clear evidence of criminal activity in a vehicle at one of those checkpoints.

Or the multiple border patrol checkpoints that are within 50 miles from Canada or Mexico...

I would disagree that the TSA is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as you assert, because of the power to regulate interstate commerce (which certainly includes at least air travel crossing state and US borders) is an explicitly enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause.

> In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything.

Really? I live in Hawaii. Its 2200 miles to the next state. Across water.

> You don't have to fly. In fact, you can drive between any two places in the US and never be searched or questioned or anything.

The interesting thing is that air travel is far more of a natural right than travel by road. At least the government built the roads you travel on.

Where in the US Constitution is the Federal government empowered to regulate the personal travel of Americans within the country?

Where in the US Constitution is the Federal government empowered to compel you to be subjected to dangerous radiation in order to board a common carrier?

And why is this outrage limited to aircraft? I can step in a boat and travel down the local river past all sorts of critical facilities without screening. Every drug dealer in my town gets product from a wholesaler in NYC whose couriers use inter-city busses. You can drive around with legal explosive materials with the exception of some tunnels and bridges.

How is being a high school drop out got anything to do with this?

I went through one of these machines for the first time last week, and I was really surprised how much it bothered me. I think the machines are excessive and all, but I'm not particularly shy. It was quite dehumanizing.

I wasn't expecting that type of machine. You have to take everything out of your pockets, and unfortunately, I had a tampon in mine. They made me hold the tampon, and hold my hands over my head, during the scan. Which is already a somewhat sexualized position for women, but I was wearing a shortish t-shirt that rode up a little.

I guess in the future I'll know to make sure my pockets are totally empty and to wear a longer shirt, and it won't be as awful. But it's still too invasive.

We're experts on collective action failure — so not sure how much traction it would gain on the grounds of privacy/health. However, "celebrity nude scans" could be lucrative for TSA agents looking to make a quick buck. The ensuing controversy could help highlight the issues.

P.S. celebritynudescans.com is still free... perhaps a fake mockup site would attract media attention?

I just registered the domain (waiting on confirmation). Who wants in?

OK, the domain registration is live. Thoughts on structure/content?

Sorry to keep posting this on similar threads, but thangalin: sounds like you might want to get involved with these guys:

http://www.stopdigitalstripsearches.org/

By all means, continue. This was the first time I've seen it, so I imagine there are others who haven't yet either.

I think HN can forgive the redundancy in cases such as this.

As a frequent traveler (usually 2-4 flights per month), this particular issue has really been bothering me.

Up until about two months ago, I had never been asked by TSA to be scanned with an AIT device. I've always just used the metal detector. Two months ago I was traveling out of Indianapolis, and was told that ALL passengers were now subject to screening with the millimeter scanner. I politely requested the metal detector and was declined, and was passed to an area for a pat-down.

After this experience, I now get agitated every single time I have to fly. When I'm in the security line I choose the line that appears to be going to the metal detector rather than the AIT scanner. Luckily, I have been able to avoid the scanners since then.

But the fact is, I don't see how the government has a right to see my naked body or touch my private parts without probable cause.

At the last airport I was at, there was a sign showing how many items had been confiscated at airports, like "18 firearms were found", and "3 highly concealed items". So, in an entire year, they only found 3 "highly concealed items"? In that same exact trip through Indianapolis, I accidentally had left a box cutter in my laptop bag which I didn't discovered until getting home. Despite spending all this money scanning, a simple business travel got a razor blade through security without a problem.

I really, really, hope these new procedures and devices get tested in court. I simply can't stand back and let people violate my personal privacy without cause.

EDIT: Apparently, at least one lawsuit was filed in July: http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_...

> like "18 firearms were found"

Was that using the backscatter device? If so, does that mean that pre-backscatter, 18 firearms a year would pass security at that airport? And not a single related incident in the entire US?

The sign was just about screening procedures in general, and didn't state the method of finding them. Of course with firearms, a traditional x-ray + meter detector would pick that up easily.

It kind of depends on whether or not they were carrying firearms that a metal detector wouldn't pick up. I really don't know how likely that would be.

Personally identifiable data, explicitly including photographs, are protected health information and are therefore their access and transmission are subject to various legal restrictions in the United States due to HIPAA (at the very least).

But the question is much more important than this, so I'd recommend not drawing this particular analogy. The degree to which backscanners are like a physician visit is only minimally related to the degree to which they are intolerable in a free society.

One of your main points (terahertz radiation) does not appear to be correct. See this blogpost from the TSA: http://blog.tsa.gov/2009/11/response-to-oops-backscatter-x-r... which, in a nutshell, reiterates: "TSA has not tested nor procured any terahertz AIT systems."

The most obvious health issue would be an unverified dose of ionizing radiation and using the incorrect units to measure the dose. A short letter of concern from UCSF might be insightful: http://npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf . http://www.dontscan.me seems to have collected other practical issues.

While these machines may stop terrorists from entering an airplane, it won't stop them from blowing up the crowded lines waiting to be scanned. Then install the machines at the entrance? The terrorists just have to move further outside. Any place with crowds of people is a threat. Nowhere is safe!
We should resurrect Ben Franklin's old adage: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Remember that the machines don't see inside body cavities. So if you, dear backscatter supporter, want to feel better (but not actually be safer), you should be arguing for complete cavity searches everywhere.

There are multiple problems with TSA screening in general, and backscatter machines in particular, which are listed below.

As these machines are ill-advised, you currently have the option to "opt out" and receive a pat-down instead.

PAT-DOWNS:

New guidelines just instituted for the pat-down procedure include groping of breasts, buttocks, and crotches. [8][15] Even for minors. [13] [14]

"My wife tells me that they grabbed my [10-year-old] son's privates and he was crying the whole time and all she could do was stand there and tell him it was going to be OK." [16]

Due to this, the ACLU is now taking reports of pat-down abuse:

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-sear...

Note that going through a scan does NOT exempt you from a pat-down grope. You may be groped if you trigger a metal detector, or if your backscatter shows an "anomaly", or for any other reason or no reason at all. There are also gate screenings, where you will be pulled aside at the gate, and since there are no machines, you will be patted down / groped.

IMPACT

About 1 in 5 people are sexually assaulted by age 18. [1]

This means that even "normal" pat-downs are extremely distressing or damaging to a significant percentage of the population, and these new procedures are simply sexual assault under color of authority, which can be traumatic. Victims of sexual assault, molestation, and rape often feel like they are re-living their experiences, and even those who don't have such a background may experience emotional damage from the procedure.

I defy anyone to belittle the experience of victims of sexual abuse, who do not want any unwanted touching forced upon them, least of all groping of private areas.

BACKSCATTER SCANS

All the official images have been redacted. Here is what it REALLY looks like, scaled down:

http://dams.rca.ac.uk/res/sites/Show2006/Images06/John_Wild_...

This is an artist's self-portrait. In addition to clearly seeing his genitals, note the penetration into his kneecaps, shin bones, and feet. Then consider the unprotected areas, such as face, neck, and eyes. Look more closely and you can see the bones in his forearms (radius, ulna), part of his humerus, and his hands.

Then consider the findings of people like David Brenner, the head of Columbia University’s Center for Radiological Research, who explains that the dose is actually 20 times higher than the official estimate. [2] [3] [4] [5]

The energy is absorbed mostly in the skin, NOT throughout the volume of the entire body as with other types of ionizing radiation. Also, the dosage is delivered in a few (under 30) seconds. You have to consider dose per unit time; the figures often mentioned for long flights mention the total dose, which is distributed over a period of HOURS.

PRIVACY

The TSA originally claimed that these machines were simply INCAPABLE of storing images. That wasn't true:

"The documents, released by the Department of Homeland Security, reveal that Whole Body Imaging machines can record, store, and transmit digital strip search images of Americans" [6]

This also goes for MMW (millimeter wave) machines used by courthouses:

"Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images" [7]

ANONYMITY

Some locations are now using a full-color video camera in addition to the backscatter / MMW imager. This means your full-body color portrait and unclothed image can be linked; and if they scan your boarding pass or other identifying information, they can link your images to your name and other personal information (phone number, address, BIRTH DATE). [12]

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Originally the TSA claimed the backscatter machines were optional and there was no penalty for declining (no groping); that they had no capability to store images; that they would NEVER be used as primary screening instead of metal detectors (now they ARE being used as primary screening in some airports with plans for the rest -- see [9] [10]).

The supposed motivation for storing images would be in case of another attempt like the underwear bomber, to go back and "check the tapes" to see what they missed.

You should probably assume that if you are scanned, your full-color and naked images along with personal identifying information will be stored by Federal agencies in perpetuity.

EVEN DHS HEAD REFUSES BODY SCANNER

"Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday hailed them as an important breakthrough for airport security and the fight against terrorism."

"Yet when it came to testing the devices - which produce chalky, naked X-ray images of passengers - she turned the floor over to some brave volunteers." [11]

OPT-OUTS MAY NOT LAST

In the U.K., whole-body scanners have been mandatory for some time. This may well come to the U.S.

So, you will be forced to be scanned, after which you may be groped anyway, then groped again at the gate, and your images both clothed and naked will be in the bowels of a government database, which then gets turned over to various private industry bidders, who all will have a copy of all your information.

Some scanners take images in real-time at a decent framerate, which means your 3D biometric information of every part of your body will soon be recorded forever and used in any number of ways.

[1] http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

[2] http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/naked-scanners-may-increa...

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7862265/Airport...

[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-bo...

[5] http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/07/full-body-sc...

[6] http://epic.org/2010/01/update---epic-posts-tsa-docume.html

[7] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html?part=rss...

[8] http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/10/29/tsa-launches-enhanced-...

[9] http://www.management.travel/news.php?cid=body-scans-body-sc...

[10] http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/backscatter-x-ray/

[11] http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_bo...

[12] http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/no-birthdate-no-ticket...

[13] http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/114134...

[14] http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/341574...

[15] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-...

[16] http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dyrr8/help_i_beli...

Obviously there is a lot of distress over the scans. Worse yet is the sense of powerlessness.

What if a permanent record was made of everyone's objection to the process - even as they acquiesce?

Sure, this is a little juvenile, but how about the "Hawaiian good luck sign" - as used by the POWs of the USS Pueblo?:

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-seizing-of-the-pueblo (third photo down the page)

Wait, where are there backscatter scanners in the UK? I've never seen one, unless I was scanned without my consent?

Heathrow and Manchester some years ago. I'm not sure what the current situation is. They're definitely not used on arrivals, but I haven't been flying out from London lately.

And don't forget the return journey. I get backscatter scanned (at the gate) around 25% of the time when I travel from Schiphol, NL to Cardiff, UK (a journey I do often).

I think they're on the Heathrow to USA flights?

I’ve not flown to the US since 2003, but I’ve flown many times to other European and Asian destinations from Heathrow and Gatwick and I’ve never been through a backscatter machine.

Yea its for the USA bound flights.

Thank you. This is a lot of great information I can use to revise the note. I am Canadian, so I will have to investigate how it applies to our laws. Links and pointers are appreciated.

On the issue of doctors. HIPPA imposes severe civil, professional and criminal concequences for leaking protected health information, standards that backscatter scanner operators likely are not required to meet because it would be expensive. Additionally, I very much doubt that the risk/benefit analysis works out. Subjects are dosed with low levels of ionizing radiation. The benefit is shorter time at checkpoints. Use of ionizing radiation is controversial. Physicians justify its use based on the specific benefit of improved diagnosis and treatment to the patient, not solely because of improved workflow.

Firstly, it's disgusting that some cretin with a TV screen gets to see these, only so that he can ask himself whether I am a wrongdoer (and whatever other inappropriate question floats through his brain) Secondly, it's not in my best interest, it's part of daft security theatre. It is not done in a situation where I need treatment and reassurance that I am being cared for, it is done in a situation where leaders think it to be reassuring to others. Thirdly, it's vastly disproportionate protection against any legitimate threat. As a corollary, showing my doctor something that is definitely wrong with me is quite, quite different to speculative imaging. The question (what is that rash?) exists and is real, and this is an efficient way to progress with it. My future children or wife cannot subject themselves to the TSA only when the threat is there and present (i.e, them). Fourthly, when visiting my doctor he/she and I have other diagnostic options than either full body nude photography or groping. He can, for example, ask me questions. Lastly, there's a huge risk that the very private information will be shared: after all, you don't have a close professional relationship with the agent, who has a particularly boring job (not like the diverse and busy role of a doctor) faced with constant possibilities for jokes scanning past his eyes. To err is human; but it happens more in dull situations.

Cretin? Why, would you be ok if a suave gentleman was looking at you naked?

Somebody else in this thread called them high-school drop-outs without getting called on it. This is just ad hominem. Why are we insulting these people? They aren't the ones who passed the law, bought the machines, put these processes in motion. Let's not weaken our argument with distracting crap.

But they do tow the party line and seem to agree with its practices and regulations.

I think most of us would stand up against our employers when asked to do something that we felt was wrong. If your boss said that it was the new regulation that you had to do something immoral, questionable or just downright wrong... would you? I personally take it upon myself to find a new job when placed in that situation, or at least convince my superiors that what they are asking isn't right. I see such as my duty as an employee. I'm not there to follow, but to make things better.

1. Even if you think they're in the wrong, and you think their inaction is comparable in harm with the action of their superiors, calling them names is still useless/distracting ad hominem. (I suspect they aren't in the wrong, and I'm certain they don't bear nearly as much responsibility.)

2. On what basis do you see them agreeing with the 'party line'?

3. I don't know you, perhaps you are really serious about giving up your job when you see something wrong. That would be awesome, and I salute you as a better man than me. But on what basis do you make this claim for others? When I look around I see no evidence of any 'us' sacrificing for strangers, for the larger good.

4. I don't feel comfortable asking others en masse to make difficult decisions I've never had to make myself. A lot of these people make far less than you and me and are just struggling to get by, to provide for dependents. How entitled can you get to ask them to give up their jobs in this environment? What have you done to help yourself on this issue, that you demand they sacrifice a livelihood to help total strangers?

5. I think if you look around you'll find something wrong with your company worth leaving. Any company that isn't carbon neutral is doing far more harm than just seeing a few people naked. And no companies are carbon neutral today. So quit. I'll wait. Back? Next, you cause more damage everytime you burn oil in your automotive, or by throwing a light switch. What are you going to do about that?

> ... and whatever other inappropriate question floats through his brain

That gives me an idea: demanding that every TSA employee that views backscatter imagery or who does a pat down must first be castrated.

Don't forget physician/patient privilege, as well.

  What is more private than our private parts? What can the
  general public be subjected to, en masse, that is more
  personally invasive than a pat-down or nude photo?

I would find surveillance of my actions at all times without being seen naked a lot more invasive than just being seen naked or patted-down while clothed. What is more private than our private parts? Our private information; our secrets.

There is extremely glaring factual mistake in this text.

"And guess what wave frequency x-ray backscatter machines use? Hint: THz. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

Sorry. You missed by a multiplier of 10000-10000000. X-rays go from tens of petahertz to tens of exahertz.

X-rays have frequencies way above visible light and terahertz waves have frequencies way below visible light. So this is quite glaring error. Is this intentional to increase doubts about x-ray backscattering or just a honest mistake?

Just to clarify for everyone who requires some source for this claim: "X-radiation (composed of X-rays) is a form of electromagnetic radiation. X-rays have a wavelength in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3 × 1016 Hz to 3 × 1019 Hz) and energies in the range 120 eV to 120 keV." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray

[EDIT] Removed few sentences which were written before morning coffee, the post was tad impolite before.

Are these new systems faster (in real world usage) than the traditional scan, and do they let you keep small items in your pocket?

I'll let security see me naked if it means I can walk through without a long line and without leaving my wallet and phone out of my sight.

You have to empty your pockets, take belts off, and so forth[1], even with backscatter scanning (I just put all of my stuff in the boxes which go through the x-ray machine), so that's not an advantage. It's also slower than metal detectors; with metal detectors, you walk right through and then go collect your stuff (unless it goes off), but with backscatter you go in, you stand still with your hands over your head for thirty seconds, and then you go out and wait until the agent there gets told that you're okay, at which point you get to go collect your stuff. Takes maybe a minute. No advantage there either.

[1] Though watches seem to be fine, as I forgot to take mine off last time and didn't have any trouble. Might be different with larger watches, though.

Is there a question about the federal government trafficking in explicit images of children? While backscatter images taken individually would likely not meet the criteria required for pornography, if a private site posted them a visit from the FBI would be more than likely. All it takes is one TSA agent being convicted as a sex offender and it's off to the races.

If i lined my pants with tinfoil would it be enough to block their view?

(not a joke post, serious question for someone who knows how these machines work)

All this time we've been perfecting our tinfoil hats we should have been designing tinfoil undies!

I also don't know how thses machines work, but I assume if the foil was enough to block their view, that your pants would appear the same way that guns, knives and other metal objects appear.

From what I've read, yes, it would. But that would simply cause them to pull you aside for a more thorough pat-down and perhaps even require you to show them your tin-foil undies.

I expect you'd get worse treatment doing this than you would going through normal pat down. After all, only terrorists use scanner-proof clothing.

faraday pants!

Don't forget:

* Doctors dont take a picture of you nude for their enjoyment at a later date

I'd have no problem going through the backscatter body scanner every time if the government would just do this to make me feel better:

- I could see the body scan of the TSA agent who is scanning me.

- The body scans of John S. Pistole (TSA administrator), Janet Napolitano (secretary of Homeland Security), and Barack Obama were made public.

I feel that if body scanning is so important then our national leaders should lead the way in showing how it's not a big deal.

I see that a lot of people agree with you.

I, however, would gladly permit myself to be scanned on condition that I never had to view the body scans of any of the aforementioned government employees.

That being said, being scanned (and especially having some files stored for unknown length of time) seems to be a very unpleasant prospect for many people. And...

There is going to be a huge outcry when (not if) some TSA employee starts posting some images online - or having a huge stash of them found on their personal computer. Count on it happening.

EDIT: Plus, count on some real action being taken once a celebrity's images are posted.

I would like to ask you an honest question, and I would like you to be honest. I will trust your answer is true.

Are you posturing and drawing a line in the sand with no real intent of following through if they cross? Or would you really go through backscatters with no qualms if they did as you asked?

It's difficult to answer the question "What would you do if this probability effectively-0 event came to pass?" So many things about that world would have to be different that I don't think that question is easy to answer. But all else being equal, yes I would actually feel better about it (despite not being the original poster you are questioning), and this is why: It would show our leadership has a proper understanding about the nature of the situation, that once information is taken it might as well be posted on the internet. Just like I'd feel better if Social Security numbers were simply declared to be public information so that we could all stop pretending that they are a useful identification technique.

I still wouldn't like it.

But it's a good question to ask, I think.

I don't travel much, but the last time I had the option I opted not to go through the body scanner. At that time, the alternative was the usual metal detector. I plan on travelling next month and I am considering doing the pat-down since in some sense I find it more honest than the body scanner.

If our leaders did release their images publicly I would at least feel that they were acting in good faith and I would be much more wiling to go through the body scanner knowing that they had really put themselves out there...

and their wives too lol