Airport scanners can store, transmit images

[Carly_Roach]

Just an update on an old thread I was on right after Christmas. I got out when it went "clique" and haven't been back since. But I was reminded of the many people on that thread who swore up and down that the naked images of you going through the security checkpoints couldn't be stored and published on the internet when I read this story this morning:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20...+3+(Top+Stories+2))&utm_content=Google+Reader

Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online Airport Scanners Can Store, Transmit Images
By Kim Zetter January 11, 2010 | 1:13 pm | Categories: Surveillance

Contrary to public statements made by the Transportation Security Administration, full-body airport scanners do have the ability to store and transmit images, according to documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The documents, which include technical specifications and vendor contracts, indicate that the TSA requires vendors to provide equipment that can store and send images of screened passengers when in testing mode, according to CNN.

The TSA has stated publicly on its website, in videos and in statements to the press that images cannot be stored on the machines and that images are deleted from the scanners once an airport operator has examined them. The administration has also insisted that the machines are incapable of sending images.

But a TSA official acknowledged to CNN that the machines do have these capabilities when set to “test mode.”

The official said these functions are disabled before the machines are delivered to airports and that there is no way for screeners in airports to put the machines into test mode to enable the functions. The official, however, would not elaborate on what specific protections, if any, are in place to prevent airport personnel from putting the machines in test mode.

The TSA also asserts that the machines are not networked, so they cannot be accessed by hackers.

Also, if you're reading the last line that states the TSA asserts that the machines aren't networked so they can't be accessed by hackers, remember that this is the same group who swore the images couldn't be stored.

I'm still against these kinds of scanners in our airports. I feel their usage is more likely to be utilized to violate human rights than it would be to catch 'terrorists'.

Just thought I'd follow up with new facts.

 

[ICF]

...and I still dont care. If it helps to keep even 1 plane from blowing up, I think it is worth it.

 

[bicker]

No matter what happens, there are going to be people who are going to seek to put their own personal feelings about their bodies over the public good. We just have to hope that the government will ignore the paranoia and still do what is best for all of us, and use the best technology and intelligence to keep us as safe as practical.

 

[TinklednPants]

My response is ...so what? They are NOT naked images. I'm not certain how to describe the "alien type blob" that is the image, but naked would not come to mind.

 

[JessicaR]

I don't care either. I have no problem with any system they deem necessary to better protect air travel. If I did, I wouldnt fly.

 

[JerseyJanice]

Of course those images can be stored, copied and transmitted--they're digital, correct?

Here is something I've been wondering about--if a woman is menstruating and uses an external feminine hygiene product, how does that show up in these images? Will it be clear on the image that's what's inside a woman's underwear? Or will it look ambiguous enough that she'll have to be subjected to a full body check just because it's her time of the month?

What about if a man's bowels were a little loose that morning? How would that show up in the image? Would he be subjected to a degrading search as a result?

And I have to say that I think a full body/cavity search is very degrading--whether someone is hiding something or not. I will give up flying if that's what it comes down to.

 

[sbell111]

Just an update on an old thread I was on right after Christmas. I got out when it went "clique" and haven't been back since. But I was reminded of the many people on that thread who swore up and down that the naked images of you going through the security checkpoints couldn't be stored and published on the internet when I read this story this morning:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20...+3+(Top+Stories+2))&utm_content=Google+Reader

Also, if you're reading the last line that states the TSA asserts that the machines aren't networked so they can't be accessed by hackers, remember that this is the same group who swore the images couldn't be stored.

I'm still against these kinds of scanners in our airports. I feel their usage is more likely to be utilized to violate human rights than it would be to catch 'terrorists'.

Just thought I'd follow up with new facts.

Ummm, your post simply reinforces the argument that the scanners used in airports cannot save or transmit pictures. It doesn't refute that position, at all.

a TSA official acknowledged to CNN that the machines do have these capabilities when set to “test mode.”

The official said these functions are disabled before the machines are delivered to airports and that there is no way for screeners in airports to put the machines into test mode to enable the functions.

Imagine that I was installing a bunch of computers for people to use. For whatever reason, I was willing to allow people to use these computers, but I didn't want them to be able to save anything to external devices from these computers.

While I am testing these computers, I leave the USB ports 'on', but when I install them, I disconnect the ports.

In this scenario, it is completely true that I can download via USB while I am testing the machines, but after they are installed no one can do so. If I then state that no user will have the ability to download via USB, I am being completely honest and above board even though I had previously been able to do so using that computer.

 

[Minnesota!]

Still doesn't bother me 1 bit.

1) keeps us safer

2) I don't care if someone is getting excited about my image on a screen. We all have the same body parts. I am not that modest that I would give a flying you know what about my body in a blobby xray type photograph.

 

[robinb]

Of course those images can be stored, copied and transmitted--they're digital, correct?

Yes they are. I also question how the images get to the screeners who view them. Is there a direct wire from the scanner to the viewing screen in the other room? I don't think so. They are being transmitted somehow.

Here is something I've been wondering about--if a woman is menstruating and uses an external feminine hygiene product, how does that show up in these images? Will it be clear on the image that's what's inside a woman's underwear? Or will it look ambiguous enough that she'll have to be subjected to a full body check just because it's her time of the month?

What about if a man's bowels were a little loose that morning? How would that show up in the image? Would he be subjected to a degrading search as a result?

I was wondering about that myself. What about the old-fashioned thick feminine napkins? What about a "full" Depends? What about putting something in a Diva Menstrual Cup? That's inside and not outside and visible with the scan.

I might feel better about the body scan if I really though that this would make flying safer. However, I just think it's more of the same ... Security Theater.

 

[luvmy3jewels]

I didn't weigh in on the original thread, but my opinion is that if it will make flying safer then they can scan away! I strongly believe that flying is a priviledge and not a right. They are welcome to go through my luggage, scan my body, limit my liquids and do whatever it may take to make it safe for everyone on the plane and on the ground. Besides, I don't think pictures of my scanned body are really something that airport security workers would want to share with their friends

 

[SaraJayne]

I didn't weigh in on the original thread, but my opinion is that if it will make flying safer then they can scan away! I strongly believe that flying is a priviledge and not a right. They are welcome to go through my luggage, scan my body, limit my liquids and do whatever it may take to make it safe for everyone on the plane and on the ground. Besides, I don't think pictures of my scanned body are really something that airport security workers would want to share with their friends

Yeah, that's the thing. It doesn't actually make flying safer. It just makes it *seem* safer, while not actually doing anything.

I agree with Robin ~ theater, plain and simple.

 

[bicker]

Whether it actually makes flying safer is a matter of opinion, and the opinions of those who feel it does not don't trump the opinions of those who feel it does nor vice versa -- essentially there must be a balancing of these conflicting perspectives, respecting that even though perhaps you disagree, the fact that other folks feel the way they feel means that our society has to factor their perspectives into the decisions about how things are going to be, along with your own. So that means that perhaps some of the more invasive approaches that could have been employed in the past (earlier technologies that did something similar to this new scanner) were not employed because of their more pronounced invasiveness. However, now the technology has improved, with this scanner less invasive than those previous technologies, and so again as a reflection of the balancing, this time society, as a matter of fairness, rightfully employs this technology.

 

[JerseyJanice]

I didn't weigh in on the original thread, but my opinion is that if it will make flying safer then they can scan away! I strongly believe that flying is a priviledge and not a right. They are welcome to go through my luggage, scan my body, limit my liquids and do whatever it may take to make it safe for everyone on the plane and on the ground. Besides, I don't think pictures of my scanned body are really something that airport security workers would want to share with their friends

Well, considering the amount of money I have to pay for my flights, I'm not so sure I see it as a "privilege".

If they're welcome to go through your luggage, scan your body, limit your liquids and do anything else, how do you feel about being brought into a room, stripped naked and having a latex-gloved TSA agent stick her fingers into your body cavities searching for something? Or being brought into a restroom and handing over your used maxipad so that can be examined?

Seriously, that is how criminals are treated, and I'm not going to subject myself to anything like that if it's the only way to get on a plane.

 

[SaraJayne]

IMO, other than a full body cavity search, there is nothing more invasive than letting a complete stranger see you naked.

YMMV

 

[NYPDwife]

I would be fine with the scanner. Any nosy TSA would probably get sick in their coffee while viewing my image anyway. HOWEVER, I do not feel it would be okay for my daughter or son to go through it. They're not doing it for children are they?

 

[bicker]

Well, considering the amount of money I have to pay for my flights, I'm not so sure I see it as a "privilege".

Money buys what is offered, not whatever one wants the money to be for.

Beyond that, as bavaria very consistently points out, we Americans pay diddly for our airline transportation, despite our feelings that it is a lot of money.

So airline transportation remains very much a privilege, subject to each passenger's willingness to comply with the rules put in place -- not based on what we want the rules to be, but rather based on what best reflects a compromise view of what the rules should be, fairly factoring in the concerns of all parties involved, each in a reasonable measure.

If they're welcome to go through your luggage, scan your body, limit your liquids and do anything else, how do you feel about being brought into a room, stripped naked and having a latex-gloved TSA agent stick her fingers into your body cavities searching for something?

Why do you ask? What constructive purpose is served by driving the discussion in that direction? What is the intention of your asking a question of that nature, in that manner, in this thread?

Seriously, that is how criminals are treated, and I'm not going to subject myself to anything like that if it's the only way to get on a plane.

You do have rights, i.e., the right not to fly.

 

[robinb]

If they're welcome to go through your luggage, scan your body, limit your liquids and do anything else, how do you feel about being brought into a room, stripped naked and having a latex-gloved TSA agent stick her fingers into your body cavities searching for something?

Why do you ask? What constructive purpose is served by driving the discussion in that direction? What is the intention of your asking a question of that nature, in that manner, in this thread?

I think that Janice brought it up in a kind of: "What's next?!?" kind of way. If we continue to submit to violation of privacy rights in the interest of "security", where does it end? First we were run through a metal detector, and then we were "wanded" and then were were patted down. Now we are viewed naked. Are full cavity searches really that far behind? DNA swabs? National IDs with all our information coded onto it? 5 years ago I would not have expected that a TSA agent would see me naked. Who knows what other indignities we will have to endure 5 years from NOW if we want to fly?

ETA: It's not just flying, either. If we come to an acceptance of these kind of procedures in certain circumstances like flying or going to a concert, they can easily be generalized to everyday life.

 

[JerseyJanice]

Money buys what is offered, not whatever one wants the money to be for.

Beyond that, as bavaria very consistently points out, we Americans pay diddly for our airline transportation, despite our feelings that it is a lot of money.

So airline transportation remains very much a privilege, subject to each passenger's willingness to comply with the rules put in place -- not based on what we want the rules to be, but rather based on what best reflects a compromise view of what the rules should be, fairly factoring in the concerns of all parties involved, each in a reasonable measure.

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but I don't view paying $1,000 for my family to fly to/from Florida as a privilege. I'm a customer of the airline and if the only way they can guarantee my safety is to view my naked image on a scanner, they can keep their "privilege."

Why do you ask? What constructive purpose is served by driving the discussion in that direction? What is the intention of your asking a question of that nature, in that manner, in this thread?

As I stated, if somebody has a natural reason for a substance to be in their underwear, how does the TSA determine that? I think a strip search would be the only way. People are saying the imaging is not that graphic so you shouldn't be concerned about how much nakedness the TSA agent can see. If that's true, then how do they know if they're viewing a dark chemical explosive powder or something that would be normal to be in one's underwear (such as a feminine product or fecal material)?

You do have rights, i.e., the right not to fly.

You're correct there. I don't have to fly, and neither does anyone else. Are we considering what this will do to our economy? I may plunk a grand to fly to WDW this summer, but I have to go through a scanner, I'm not going. Maybe no one cares if it's just me, but if a lot of other people start saying "Enough!" it can have a very negative effect.

 

[Ember]

No matter what happens, there are going to be people who are going to seek to put their own personal feelings about their bodies over the public good. We just have to hope that the government will ignore the paranoia and still do what is best for all of us, and use the best technology and intelligence to keep us as safe as practical.

It strikes me that this exact argument could be made for mandatory vaccination. People are much more likely to die of preventable diseases than they are from terrorism on flights, so it would make sense to enforce vaccination. That would keep the spread of disease down, potentially saving many lives by increasing herd immunity for those who are unable to be vaccinated. There are some strong statistics showing how certain diseases have returned thanks to those who take an anti vaccine stance. Yes, it's invasive and many people would be uncomfortable with it, but then " there are going to be people who are going to seek to put their own personal feelings about their bodies over the public good."

I am NOT saying I believe the above statement, but it's interesting how easily your argument could be applied elsewhere.

 

[bicker]

I think that Janice brought it up in a kind of: "What's next?!?" kind of way.

Fair enough, but the explicit nature of it struck me more like sensationalistic tabloid headlines than a measured "What's next?" kind of thing, i.e., that it was intended to evoke emotion rather than thinking.

If we continue to submit to violation of privacy rights in the interest of "security", where does it end?

Where does the need for security end?

Here's another example of this: In my home, I am required to maintain a certified fire sprinkler system, monitored by the fire department. I had to let this equipment into my home, equipment that, by the way, it if has a fault, will liberally douse my property with water. Why is this required? For the safety of my neighbors -- so that if something happens in my home, that the risk to my neighbors' homes is lessened.

What we're seeing with this scanner situation is misdirected frustration. The fault for all of this rests with those who would cause harm. All of the fault. However, people feel that blaming terrorists is unsatisfying for them, so they redirect their anger onto TSA, FAA, whatever, because they derive personal satisfaction from having someone to blame who, unlike terrorists, actually might care about the nasty things that the complainers would say about them.

ETA: It's not just flying, either. If we come to an acceptance of these kind of procedures in certain circumstances like flying or going to a concert, they can easily be generalized to everyday life.

Absolutely. Reality sucks sometimes.