backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by fteoath64.. on Mar 11 at 8:19 AM


  (Source: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/Warner Bros.)
Scanner couldn't even perform as well as a basic metal detector, but it's good at looking at your genitals

Body scanners are a controversial tool that's currently being installed at airports worldwide -- particularly in the U.S., where the government has paid contractors such as Rapiscan and Brijot hundreds of millions of dollars to deploy over 500 of the devices.  In the U.S. the deployment has reportedly been pushed by illicit financial ties, such as former U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) chief Michael Chertoff's financial relationship with Rapiscan, who paid off the chief for his "consulting services."

Michael Chertoff
Ex-DHS chief Michael Chertoff accepted payments from Rapiscan, even as he was promoting paying the contractor millions of dollars in body scanner contracts. [Image Source: DHS]

Meanwhile, there have been reports of U.S. Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) officials abusing the devices to make fun of peoples' genitals.  And reports also indicate health risks and the possibility that the DHS may be storing nudes scans of people for later reference.

But the most damning piece of evidence against the scanners yet may have just landed, delivered by college-educated engineer Jonathan Corbett, who runs the blog "TSA Out of Our Pants".

Mr. Corbett has identified a weakness in the device, which essentially renders them useless.  He noticed that both the older backscatter machines and the new millimeter wave scanners, chose the color of spotted solid objects as identitical to the background, allowing techs to spot items hidden against the body (colorized as white), such as weapons or bomb-making chemicals.  So he decided to see what happened if a secret pocket was stitched into a shirt, well off of the body.

Body scanner images
Body scanners rely solely on contrast -- making them useless if the weapon or bomb-making supply is held off the body, tests have shown. [Image Source: TSA]

He tested the theory using a metal case stored inside a secret pocket.  Had he put the object in his chest pocket, it would have been spotted in the scans and he would almost certainly have been detained. But by using the secret side pocket, which was not contrasted in the image against his body, he eluded both the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport's backscatter machine and the Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport's newest millimeter wave machine.

He comments to top UK news site Mail Online, "While I carried the metal case empty, it could easily have been filled with razor blades, explosives, or one of Charlie Sheen’s infamous seven gram rocks of cocaine.  With a bigger pocket, perhaps sewn on the inside of the shirt, even a firearm could get through."

The metal case would have been detected by the old security checkpoint of a decade ago, as it had metal-detectors.  However, the new checkpoints largely have no built-in metal detection of on-person objects, relying solely on full-body scanners and occasional pat-downs (which Mr. Corbett did not receive).

Cleverly, Mr. Corbett video-taped his clean scan, by putting his camera, running, on the conveyor belt and allowing it to travel through luggage X-Ray scan, spotting him on his way out.

Jonathan Corbett
Jonathan Corbett -- an engineer-turned blogger -- has presented compelling evidence that body scanners decrease security and are ineffective at fighting terrorism.  He is suing the TSA
[Image Source: Jonathan Corbett/Mail Online]

"Now, I'm sure the TSA will accuse me of aiding the terrorists by releasing this video, but it's beyond belief that the terrorists haven't already figured this out and are already plotting to use this against us.  It’s also beyond belief that the TSA did not already know everything I just told you, and arrogantly decided to disregard our safety. The nude body scanner program is nothing but a giant fraud."

In the past it was shown that less-dense objects like plastic guns or low-density explosives could be missed in backscatter images.  However, this is the first compelling proof that millimeter wave designs are also useless -- another prop in the government's expensive game of "security theater" -- a game that has been potentially motivated by financial corruption.

Mr. Corbett recalls thinking when he first envisioned the work-around, "It can't possibly be that easy to beat the TSA’s billion dollar fleet of nude body scanners, right? The TSA can't be that stupid, can they?"

Summarizing his findings, he comments, "Unfortunately, they can, and they are."

Airport travellers
An engineer has offered evidence that the TSA and DHS have recklessly endangered hundreds of thousands of Americans by promoting a false illusion of security with body scanners.
[Image Source: Corbis]

The TSA has refused to comment on these developments.

Video of the incident can be found here:



Google Inc.'s (GOOG) YouTube (the host) has rated this video 18+ as per its "Community Guidelines", although it does not contain any profanity or any ostensibly inappropriate content.

Other threats to the effectiveness of the devices are also looming.  Recently, terrorists in Saudi Arabia have resorted to increasingly complex methods for disguising improvised explosive devices, such as inserting bombs in their rectal cavities [1][2]. The question becomes whether the TSA will go as far as ordering "cavity searches" of travellers, in addition to genital-region pat downs of everyone from children to the elderly.

The embarassment for the TSA and DHS -- and the Bush and Obama administrations that supported the scanner rollout -- is unlikely to fade any time soon, though.  Mr. Corbett has taken the bold move of suing [PDF] the TSA for the scanner rollout, which he complains was a waste of money that decreased security versus traditional metal detectors and pat-downs.

Sources: TSA Out of Our Pants [press release], [lawsuit], Daily Mail



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: But... But...
By Paj on 3/8/2012 7:25:13 AM , Rating: 2
There s a huge difference between a police state and law and order.


RE: But... But...
By tng on 3/8/2012 8:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There s a huge difference between a police state and law and order.
Depends on what you call law and order.

I grew up in a very rural area where almost every body owned a gun. There was no crime to speak of, unless you count breaking traffic laws. When I moved to a large metro area I found that people there were afraid of guns and many were afraid of me because I had used guns before. It was just sad. Most of these people were just waiting to be a victim of crime, scared of almost everything.


RE: But... But...
By Kurz on 3/8/2012 10:48:22 AM , Rating: 3
Fear is the mind killer.


RE: But... But...
By Invane on 3/8/2012 12:15:51 PM , Rating: 3
This is the method the government is currently using to push their gun control agenda. If they can get it to the point that most people fear guns, tighter and tighter gun control will be a foregone conclusion.

I also grew up in smaller rural areas where guns were commonplace. Having a gun rack in the back window of your truck was fairly commonplace. Nowadays people freak out at the mere sight of a gun.

The lack of education and knowledge about firearms is the real problem here, and I have no doubt this is intentional. Switzerland has mandatory training in this regard for all males as well as one of the highest firearm ownership rates in the world. Shooting is a national pastime, and seeing someone carrying a rifle in plain sight down the street is common. It also has some of the lowest crime rates.

Once you give up the knowledge and right to defend yourself, and expect some other empowered party to do it for you, you submit to anything that empowered party wants to do to you. This is quickly becoming the state of American law enforcement as police departments become more militarized while gun legislation becomes more and more strict.

Firearms have played an important role in our country's history. They are a tool, and, like any other can be used for whatever purpose the human being using them chooses. I used to have an aversion to guns, but I've since come to understand the purpose they serve. I sincerely wish more Americans would educate themselves on this point and begin exercising their right to own a gun. An armed society is a polite society.


RE: But... But...
By JediJeb on 3/8/2012 2:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
Correct! If people want the police to be the ones that will constantly protect them, then they will have to be willing to put up the money to expand the police force until there can be an officer on ever corner 24/7, otherwise there will be openings in the coverage and someone is going to get through.

Home defense should be every person's responsibility personally. Problem is now days everyone wants to just have their fun and never be bothered with the responsibilities required for everyday life.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki