Protest being organized against naked pictures and aggressive groping

[paulusa302]

Then give us a source Paul, or is this just an opinion?

I did in the other post. I just didn't want to repeat myself.

But you can do it yourself. Just google an opposing view yourself.

[Mark]

An expert on the radio just said that if you use a body cavity to hide something, the x-ray can't detect it becaus the scanner goes no deeper than 1" max and that includes the clothing...

If this is true then some really fat person could smuggle things in their fat folds right?

[Mark]

Tracy: I was wrong it does not blur out the private areas, but it does blur out the face and there is no way for the operator to change that.

If it blurs out the face what is to keep a person from wearing a mask like that asian kid did when he tried to sneak into Canada as an old man? If it blurs then someone could make a mask to hide things in since the scanners will just blur the image anyway. Or someone with a wig, etc...

[max1]

Dude, I worked for the Government and I know that changes can be made by a single supervisor and the public will never know. Even the MFG says all they need is the password to put the scanner into super-user mode and it can do everything we all fear and lazy supervisors will let their scanners to be kept in super-user mode and the TSA Storm Troopers will do their worst.

You want to place your trust in the TSA, fine. But don't be mad at me because I don't.

I read your source Paul, and while they make a good argument they present NO evidence, same as you have. At least the TSA has provided outside evidence to back up their position. Im not saying I place my trust in any one agency but I'm also not going to get my infomation I use to make a decision based solely upon what someone says, and Im surprised you would. Hey on the upside you could invest that 40 grand you have in tinfoil

[max1]

If it blurs out the face what is to keep a person from wearing a mask like that asian kid did when he tried to sneak into Canada as an old man? If it blurs then someone could make a mask to hide things in since the scanners will just blur the image anyway. Or someone with a wig, etc...

I really dont know GL> Anything more then that I would be guessing. But its a good point.

[paulusa302]

I read your source Paul, and while they make a good argument they present NO evidence, same as you have. At least the TSA has provided outside evidence to back up their position. Im not saying I place my trust in any one agency but I'm also not going to get my infomation I use to make a decision based solely upon what someone says, and Im surprised you would. Hey on the upside you could invest that 40 grand you have in tinfoil

And you have no evidence beyond the TSA offering a pinky swear.

[Chase]

And you have no evidence beyond the TSA offering a pinky swear.

and that ain't worth a velvet painting of a dolphin and a whale gettin' it on!

[gongoputch]

Let me think... Of things the Governemt told me that turned out to be not true.

Your social secrurity number won't be used to identify you, it will only be used for your retirement.

Social Security will always be our safety-net, and the tax will be only 2 percent.

Federal aid to education will never result in the federal control of education.
.

Don't forget the classic that social security would be held in a separate fund, away from the general one.
In fact this touches on a general theme that we should not trust ANYTHING a politician promises that will happen after they are out of office (or dead). Not that we should trust anything they promise anyway but there is nearly zero probability of truthfulness with out direct consequence to them.

[gongoputch]

Then give us a source Paul, or is this just an opinion?

I am here to tell you that I have worked in IT for a bit longer than I would like to admit, the field of securability has been of keen interest to me. It is my considered opinion that these safeguards are a joke, for background on this type of thing, google "Diebold voting machines". It is far less costly to set up a propaganda page than to invest in proper security. The real issue here is accountability. And responsiveness to something other than a draconian and incompetent beaurocracy (sp). Remember, the government indemnifies itself from most forms of legal recourse by the public.

[max1]

And you have no evidence beyond the TSA offering a pinky swear.

You have read none of my posts

and that ain't worth a velvet painting of a dolphin and a whale gettin' it on!

neither have you

Don't forget the classic that social security would be held in a separate fund, away from the general one.
In fact this touches on a general theme that we should not trust ANYTHING a politician promises that will happen after they are out of office (or dead). Not that we should trust anything they promise anyway but there is nearly zero probability of truthfulness with out direct consequence to them.

or you

I am here to tell you that I have worked in IT for a bit longer than I would like to admit, the field of securability has been of keen interest to me. It is my considered opinion that these safeguards are a joke, for background on this type of thing, google "Diebold voting machines". It is far less costly to set up a propaganda page than to invest in proper security. The real issue here is accountability. And responsiveness to something other than a draconian and incompetent beaurocracy (sp). Remember, the government indemnifies itself from most forms of legal recourse by the public.

Here ONCE again is a link to someone OTHER then the GOVERNMENT.... Frankly gongoputch I have no idea who you are or what your credentials are and I trust Johns Hopkins University opinion more then yours.

[paulusa302]

Now this just in...

'Naked' scanners fooled by creased clothing

Published: 16 Nov 10 12:18 CET
Online: 'Naked' scanners fooled by creased clothing - The Local

Controversial "naked" body scanners currently being tested at Hamburg's airport are constantly malfunctioning due to folds in passengers' clothing, broadcaster NDR reported on Tuesday.
The public radio station said the trial of the body imaging security scanners has been plagued by serious problems. The units, which have been in use since September, are apparently unable to tell the difference between foreign objects and such things like pleated clothing.


The scanners use millimetre-wave technology to produce outline images of bodies, with each scan lasting less than three seconds.

While some passengers are being asked to remove thicker clothes such as jumpers, NDR reported that the devices are regularly malfunctioning due to creases in lighter clothes such as blouses and skirts.

Although use of the scanners remains optional, every passenger must now also be patted down and pass through a metal detector, whether or not they have been scanned.

The extra security checks are causing delays, resulting in longer lines and irritated passengers.

New software due to be installed to solve at least part of the problem is not yet ready for use, NDR reported.

The scanners has previously been criticised by civil liberties campaigners the world over, mostly due to fears of how the images would be stored.

Plans to fast-track tests of the controversial body scanners were announced in January following the foiled “underwear bomb” attack in Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. The trial period is due to run until the end of March 2011.

[gongoputch]

Here ONCE again is a link to someone OTHER then the GOVERNMENT.... Frankly gongoputch I have no idea who you are or what your credentials are and I trust Johns Hopkins University opinion more then yours.

I am just some IT goof. But a IT goof that has learned how to use a few security tools and tricks.
Here is a *very* short list.
* Penetration Testing | The Metasploit Project
* Tenable Network Security
* A Shatter Attack: How it works | Security | silicon.com
* Demonstration of Windows XP Privilege Escalation Exploit | AskStudent
I do have contacts in the security community who do have pedigrees, the conclusion in the security community seems to be that it is a perfect example of lobbyists winning and technology losing.
According to the Procurement Specification the operating system is Windows XP embedded. Also in the same document it says that USB and TCP/IP interfaces and pre-installed drivers for them are present. Given physical access to a unit, the difficulty of getting admin rights is laughably low. With a little preparation a normal IT goof could even do it. Given some preparation time and armed with nothing but publicly available information and tools, I would love to do a penetration test on one of these things. If the TSA were serious they would have used an A or B security level operating system(2). Most general purpose Operating Systems are at best C2 level.
I don't have john's hopkins credentials but the history of IT security is littered with such credentialized reports who's ultimate value was shown to be on the level of bird cage liners. Argument from Authority(1) has been shown time and time again to be one of the greatest threats to IT security.
e.g. the Motion Picture Association of America's flagship encryption mechanism was cracked by a 17 year old. This is just an illustrative example of "davis slaying goliath".
The normal IT goofs who do these things do it for little more than intellectual curiosity and bragging rights whereas the credentialized entities are usually paid for their conclusions. The reports are basically trying to prove a negative. The absence of evidence and not evidence of absence. This is a classic logical fallacy.
Believe who and what you will, I will not take offense. Just don't put money (or your life) on the veracity of the conclusions of the high and mighty.

(1) Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(2) Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[paulusa302]

Nakid scanner, Google working on tech to search the web by photo. Soon your PC will be able to match your photo to a nude Xray. Soon you will be able to see what grandma looks like in the flesh.

Who knows what will be possible in 5 years......

[max1]

Soooooooooooooo, how did that "opt out" thingy work out for you folks

[Bellicose]

and that ain't worth a velvet painting of a dolphin and a whale gettin' it on!

Strangely that is an image I am a bit curious about...lol

About the blurring on the images. I am sure that "if" the images are blurred in the spots that they "say" they are. That say there was something that a person of interest could use to do some damage, it would show up as a bright spot in the image, and therefore said person would be pulled aside for a more thorough search.

Onto the so called images posted on the intra-web. Are we really sure that they are the "real" images of said people? Are we sure they are not photo shopped images of these people, or images of people that somewhat resemble the people?

I personally am not against this, but I can see why some people are. The kid thing, somewhat I am against. Because yes, there could be a un-registered pervert that is the one who is looking at these images. But, now with that being said, if we had a child and we were to fly, I would like to think that I would much rather have them scanned rather then be groped by someone.

As far as the TSA taking pics with the cell phone, that is something that I have thought about as well. Now with that being said, I am sure that the people who are the ones working in the booth seeing the pics, are probably not allowed to have cell phones on them. Let alone, I have heard some TSA people say that the images are only up for a few seconds, and then are gone. I don't know about you, but no cell phone camera is taking a pic that fast.

Personally, when we fly, I will be walking through these scanners, because I like to think that they are trying their best to make my flight safe. If they see my baby batter maker then so be it. If they laugh oh well, who cares, I am sure they will see smaller, and probably even bigger. If they approach me and say I have a tiny one, then I reserve the right to criticize them for checking my junk out, and call them a homo. While I donkey punch said person. You have the right to opt-out. So, opt-out, be groped, and be merry! Hey if they want me to ship my luggage to my location, and fly naked, I will do it, if that means that I am that much safer on my flight.