Body scanners can store, send images, group says

Body scanners can store, send images, group says - CNN.com

This doesn't take me by surprise. There is no way I am going to let myself, or my wife go through the one of these.

Think of what weirdo has the job of sitting behind that computer screen all day

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

exampasser

Thanks for sharing the article with us.<sarcasm> Remember folks, it's to keep us safe. I can't wait for the **** probes to come out next!r</sarcasm>
I only flew once in my life. I never plan on flying again until this garbage goes away.

Bokeh

I can see some scumbag lawyer saying you have to let my client go. Says you cannot store images, so you have no proof he was wearing explosives. I bet you planted them on him. No evidence.

exampasser

Bokeh wrote: »

I can see some scumbag lawyer saying you have to let my client go. Says you cannot store images, so you have no proof he was wearing explosives. I bet you planted them on him. No evidence.

Remember all terrorists will be exempt from being scanned, scanning them would be 'profiling'. We are testing out how far we can push the American citizens to do what we tell them to do.

Kaminsky

They are in the UK now as well. To be honest, I went to the states for the first time last year and it wasn't that much of a convenience. Well, maybe having to take my belt off and nearly dropping my trousers, but I can see the positive side to it all. I even got pulled out for a random check at customs at Dulles airport but, again, no biggee. The 8 hour long flight though... that was a real pain in the a$$.

GAngel

I already feel like enough of a criminal every time I pass through a U.S. airport and i'm just a canadian.

"You seem to like our country quite alot mr xxxxx...."
"I do alot of work from here"
"I'm sure you do"

Then you're all paranoid and stressed out the whole flight.

JBrown

veritas_libertas wrote: »

Body scanners can store, send images, group says - CNN.com

This doesn't take me by surprise. There is no way I am going to let myself, or my wife go through the one of these.

Think of what weirdo has the job of sitting behind that computer screen all day

You might find a weirdo in any profession, even yours. Would you not be a weirdo by poking in the exchange server database and reading other peoples emails ? or what about when you use wireshark/ tcpdump to find the data flow problem, you are weirdo because besides "profiling" for DHCP or SMB2 packets you're collecting the **** HTTP and JPG traffic belonging to Nancy ( she is just out of college and still think that its ok to flirt right and left with other hot chicks at work) from cubicle 10.

veritas_libertas

JBrown wrote: »

You might find a weirdo in any profession, even yours. Would you not be a weirdo by poking in the exchange server database and reading other peoples emails ? or what about when you use wireshark/ tcpdump to find the data flow problem, you are weirdo because besides "profiling" for DHCP or SMB2 packets you're collecting the **** HTTP and JPG traffic belonging to Nancy ( she is just out of college and still think that its ok to flirt right and left with other hot chicks at work) from cubicle 10.

I'm sorry but I fail to see the comparison. Instead of looking through my dirty laundry i.e. luggage, laptop bag, etc. They are looking through my clothes and seeing me naked. That seems like much more of breach of privacy than scanning my e-mail or sifting through my packets.

exampasser

veritas_libertas wrote: »

I'm sorry but I fail to see the comparison. Instead of looking through my dirty laundry i.e. luggage, laptop bag, etc. They are looking through my clothes and seeing me naked. That seems like much more of breach of privacy than scanning my e-mail or sifting through my packets.

I didn't see the comparison either. I could see some sickos applying for the screening job.

msteinhilber

veritas_libertas wrote: »

I'm sorry but I fail to see the comparison. Instead of looking through my dirty laundry i.e. luggage, laptop bag, etc. They are looking through my clothes and seeing me naked. That seems like much more of breach of privacy than scanning my e-mail or sifting through my packets.

I think he was just trying to point out that not ALL people who were tasked with that particular job would be weirdo's - that any job can have those sorts of people. Although I am sure there would be some who would probably enjoy that particular role, it doesn't mean they all would. Some people have to do jobs they don't necessarily care to do but it's either that or be out of a job - but by doing the job it doesn't make them a weirdo by default.

Frankly, I don't care for the body scanners myself. I would much rather the intelligence communities work out their communication issues. I really have minimal knowledge as to what goes on to behind the scenes with intelligence, but I have to wonder as time goes on if the intelligence community becomes a bit too reliant on technology and allows the communication between agencies to suffer by not properly following through or following up on intel.

Zartanasaurus

Bokeh wrote: »

I can see some scumbag lawyer saying you have to let my client go. Says you cannot store images, so you have no proof he was wearing explosives. I bet you planted them on him. No evidence.

Well he certainly can say that. I doubt he'd be terribly successful with that approach.

networker050184

Why would you care if they had naked pictures of you? I don't really see the big deal personally. I'd rather them have naked pictures of me and my wife and be alive than have my privacy and get blown up on a plane. You can't have it both ways although some people seem to want it all and not have to give anything in return to get it.

exampasser

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

apena7

networker050184 wrote: »

Why would you care if they had naked pictures of you? I don't really see the big deal personally. I'd rather them have naked pictures of me and my wife and be alive than have my privacy and get blown up on a plane. You can't have it both ways although some people seem to want it all and not have to give anything in return to get it.

+1
If someone wants to take naked pictures of me, I'll go right ahead and say "enjoy the show."

Oh well, political correctness trumps common sense yet again. The rule of thumb is it's better to make the entire population suffer than dare hurt the feelings of a minority of a minority.

networker050184

apena7 wrote: »

+1
If someone wants to take naked pictures of me, I'll go right ahead and say "enjoy the show."

Oh well, political correctness trumps common sense yet again. The rule of thumb is it's better to make the entire population suffer than dare hurt the feelings of a minority of a minority.

Man I couldn't agree more. I don't like to discuss politics on here, but as Americans we need to stop being so politically correct. You can't always make everyone happy.

mikej412

veritas_libertas wrote: »

Think of what weirdo has the job of sitting behind that computer screen all day

I'll take my chances with that weirdo sitting behind that computer screen over the weirdo who puts explosives in their underwear.

I've gone through overseas airports where you were frisked to enter the secured gate area while being watched by two guys with submachine guns -- and this was after having anything you were carrying on swabbed and checked before being allowed into the terminal. And I'm pretty sure my checked baggage was searched before being placed on the plane.

RouteThisWay

JBrown wrote: »

You might find a weirdo in any profession, even yours. Would you not be a weirdo by poking in the exchange server database and reading other peoples emails ? or what about when you use wireshark/ tcpdump to find the data flow problem, you are weirdo because besides "profiling" for DHCP or SMB2 packets you're collecting the **** HTTP and JPG traffic belonging to Nancy ( she is just out of college and still think that its ok to flirt right and left with other hot chicks at work) from cubicle 10.

Biggest difference imho? Exchange email boxes are company property. My personal bags, clothing, etc.. are just that.. mine.

The user does not own the mail box. I do own my suitcase

exampasser

RouteThisWay wrote: »

Biggest difference imho? Exchange email boxes are company property. My personal bags, clothing, etc.. are just that.. mine.

The user does not own the mail box. I do own my suitcase

They now think they own our bodies . . .

networker050184

exampasser wrote: »

They now think they own our bodies . . .

Well, you don't own the airplane and don't have to get on it if you don't want to so I don't really see the validity of your statement. If you don't like the way things are done then don't fly simple as that. Don't try to make it unsafe for everyone else just because you are scared that a picture of your wee wee might be seen by a few people.

EDIT: By "you" I was more referring to the opponents of the scanners. Not your wee wee in particular exampasser

veritas_libertas

mikej412 wrote: »

I'll take my chances with that weirdo sitting behind that computer screen over the weirdo who puts explosives in their underwear.

I've gone through overseas airports where you were frisked to enter the secured gate area while being watched by two guys with submachine guns -- and this was after having anything you were carrying on swabbed and checked before being allowed into the terminal. And I'm pretty sure my checked baggage was searched before being placed on the plane.

Yeah but they aren't TSA...

That being said... From what I have read these body scanners would not even have detected the bomb in his underwear.

http://www.gadling.com/2010/01/03/body-scanners-wouldnt-have-caught-northwest-bomber/

By the way, if I was going to put an explosive in my underwear I would want it work. OUCH!

wd40

You have those scanners in USA, so if a guy is heading towards USA from another country "Like the Nigerian guy" they are useless.

veritas_libertas

Well, I guess this conversation didn't go where I though it would

I am not against security, and certainly not against profiling. I just don't see any reason that people should be subjected to those things. That being said, I am done with this thread.

Oh, before I do I should mention this post on FAIL Blog:

Airport Security Fail FAIL Blog: Epic Fail Pictures and Videos of Owned, Pwnd and Fail Moments

Oh, and there was also the Bruce Schneir posting that I noticed today while reading his Blog:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/tsa_logo_contes.html

eMeS

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I travel at least as much as anyone else on this site, if not more.

These scanners don't bother me in the least, however, many of the alternatives do.

In 1995 I was traveling from England to France on Eurostar. That summer, France was having problems with Algerians setting off bombs in Paris. During the ride, when you cross into French territory, 3 gentlemen visited with each passenger. One was well dressed; he asked for my passport and had several questions about why I was traveling to France. The other two men were dressed in military fatigues. One pointed a machine gun at me while the first did his thing. The third man had a German Shepherd, which snuffed me during the entire episode.

I didn't share my usual repertoire of jokes about France surrendering....

Only twice in my life have I had a gun pointed at me; both times it was in France, and both times it related to using a train or an airport. Another time I got waved along in Strasbourg by some paramilitary type, but he didn't point his gun at me...

If you've ever had a gun point at you, you will understand why I prefer the scanners....

Not sure if many of you remember this, but immediately following 9/11 and thereafter we had the military/national guard in domestic airports. They were armed and I believe there were occasions when guns were pointed at people.

As a frequent traveler, what bothers me more than the scanner is the lack of options. There used to be a program called "Clear" for regular travelers. You could pay a fee, have a background check done, and effectively avoid the security lines. Sadly the company running this went out of business earlier this year.

There needs to be a program like "Clear", but run by the TSA.

Political correctness is not something that concerns me. As a nation we need to get over our problems with racial and national origin profiling. Having a false positive because of this is much better than the alternative.

I predict that within 5 years in the US we will be doing this, probably following the first successful domestic attack by the jihadists on a Wal-Mart, shopping mall or sports arena.

MS

eMeS

wd40 wrote: »

You have those scanners in USA, so if a guy is heading towards USA from another country "Like the Nigerian guy" they are useless.

They will likely require airports with flights inbound to the US to install them, much as they did with various detection devices following 9/11.

In fact, it's more likely that these devices would be installed in international airports with flight inbound to the US first.

MS

eMeS

exampasser wrote: »

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

I think you've misunderstood the statement.

Liberty is freedom from control. The jihadists are the ones that are seeking control, particularly in terms of picking time of death.

IMO, it's the jihadists that have sacrificed essential liberty of action in an effort to be temporarily safe from The Great Satan. They deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will get neither.

MS

wd40

eMeS wrote: »

They will likely require airports with flights inbound to the US to install them, much as they did with various detection devices following 9/11.

In fact, it's more likely that these devices would be installed in international airports with flight inbound to the US first.

MS

I do not think that this will ever happen in the middle east, USA has way too many interests in the region "especially in the Arabian/Persian Gulf" to risk any sort of diplomatic issues, again back to the political correctness issue.

++

Do not call them "jihadists" They are a bunch of crazy terrorists.

eMeS

wd40 wrote: »

I do not think that this will ever happen in the middle east, USA has way too many interests in the region "especially in the Arabian/Persian Gulf" to risk any sort of diplomatic issues, again back to the political correctness issue.

++

Strip searches have been common in Israel for decades. That's in the middle east, and it's more invasive than scanners.

wd40 wrote: »

Do not call them "jihadists" They are a bunch of crazy terrorists.

It's not my job to judge why they think what they do. In their minds they're carrying out some divinely inspired holy war. That's fine with me, as long as they understand that in my mind I support all measures to help them quickly meet with their divine inspiration.

MS

wd40

eMeS wrote: »

Strip searches have been common in Israel for decades. That's in the middle east, and it's more invasive than scanners.

MS

Sorry, My mistake.

I do not think that this will ever happen in the Middle East "Other than Israel", It is a special case.

dynamik

veritas_libertas wrote: »

This doesn't take me by surprise. There is no way I am going to let myself, or my wife go through the one of these.

Think of what weirdo has the job of sitting behind that computer screen all day

If he's interested in what I have, then I just feel sorry for him and will gladly oblige out of pity.

eMeS

dynamik wrote: »

If he's interested in what I have, then I just feel sorry for him and will gladly oblige out of pity.

The one place where you might find true love is at a TSA checkpoint....

MS

apena7

eMeS wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood the statement.

Liberty is freedom from control. The jihadists are the ones that are seeking control, particularly in terms of picking time of death.

IMO, it's the jihadists that have sacrificed essential liberty of action in an effort to be temporarily safe from The Great Satan. They deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will get neither.

MS

Hmm....I'd have to disagree. The Jihadists seek only to kill 'infidels' starting with the Jews, moving onto the Christians, and then all other non-Muslims. By blowing themselves up with explosives they become 'martyrs' and are then entitled to 72 perpetual virgins and all the wine they can drink in paradise. Then again, if that's their definition with 'control,' then I agree with you.

The truth is the majority of Muslims are liberal, meaning they don't apply every single Islamic statement to their lives. The Jihadists take the Qur'an and the Hadith literally -- so when they read the 10,000 or so statements to go and kill, guess what they do? The liberal Muslims read those same statements, acknowledge that it happened in the past, but don't apply it to the present. It's like us Americans reading a history book and saying, 'hey, it says in this book that we're at war with the British -- let's go kill them!'

Well, I suppose the best part about this latest attempt is that the Nigerian was completely foiled -- no virgins for you!