Strip For Your Country

[Lady Dragonfly]

Browsing for the the latest news, I came across this article on MSN:

Digital Penetration

Invasion of the naked body scanners.
By William Saletan
Posted Saturday, March 3, 2007, at 7:32 AM ET

Psssst. Want to see Susan Hallowell naked? Look at the Feb. 24 New York Times. She's on Page A10.

Hallowell runs the Transportation Security Administration's research lab. Four years ago, she volunteered to be scanned by a backscatter X-ray machine, which sees through clothing. She was wearing a skirt and blazer. But in the picture, she's as good as nude.

Last week, TSA began using backscatters at airports to screen passengers for weapons. The first machine is up and running in Phoenix. The next ones will be in New York and Los Angeles. The machines have been modified with a "privacy algorithm" to clean up what they show. But even the tempered images tell you more than you need to know about the endowments of the people seated next to you.

Are you up for this? Are you ready to get naked for your country?

This is no joke. The government needs to look under your clothes. Ceramic knives, plastic guns, and liquid explosives have made metal detectors obsolete. Carry-on bags are X-rayed, so the safest place to hide a weapon is on your body. Puffer machines can detect explosives on you, but only if you're sloppy. Backscatters are different. They can scan your whole surface, locating and identifying anything of unusual density—not just metals, which have high atomic numbers, but drugs and explosives, which have low ones.

Why isn't this technology in lots of airports already? One reason is fear of radiation. That's a needless worry. You get less radiation from a scan than from sitting on a plane for two minutes. If that's too much for you, don't fly.

The main stumbling block has been privacy. The ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have fought backscatters at every turn, calling them a "virtual strip search." It's a curious phrase. The purpose of a strip-search is the search. Stripping is just a means. Virtual inspections achieve the same end by other means. They don't extend the practice of strip-searching. They abolish it.

When the manufacturer of the backscatter machines, American Science & Engineering, introduced the technology in prisons nine years ago, the whole point was to replace strip searches. "The scan requires no physical contact between the operator and the subject, thus vastly reducing the threat of assault against law enforcement personnel and the spread of communicable diseases," the company argued. The rationale, like the machine, conveyed not an ounce of human warmth, which is why the inmates preferred it. Better to be seen than touched. Better to be depersonalized than degraded.

Thanks to terrorism, the rest of us now face the same choice. Under TSA policy, if you set off an airport metal detector or are chosen for secondary screening, you're subject to a pat-down inspection that "may include sensitive areas of the body" such as your chest and thighs. Unless, that is, you're lucky enough to be in Phoenix, where you can choose a backscatter instead.

The impersonality of machines can also filter out racism. Five years ago, the ACLU objected to body scans because they were administered selectively, "based on profiles that are racially discriminatory." But the best way to remove selection bias is to scan everyone. In Phoenix, TSA has put the backscatter monitors in a sealed room 50 feet from the security checkpoint, so the officers who staff them can't see you. All they can see are X-ray images, which capture density, not pigment. To them, everyone is the same color.

Putting a machine interface between you and the examining officer protects your visual as well as tactile privacy. In a strip search, the officer sees you exactly as you are. On a monitor, the image can be filtered. The "privacy algorithm" doesn't obscure every detail of your physique, as pictures on TSA's Web site make all too clear. But that's not essential. Look closely at the pictures. It's not the body that has been rendered indistinct. It's the face.

That's the first key to reconciling airport screening with privacy: We need to see your body, not your face. For those 30 seconds, we know where you are. If your scan suggests a problem, we'll pull you aside. The second key is that the officer who sees you on the monitor never sees you in the flesh. In Phoenix, TSA hasn't just put the monitors in a separate room. It's laying cables to put them in an entirely different terminal. Likewise, the officer who sees you in the flesh never sees you on the monitor. It's like the blind men and the elephant: Nobody has the whole picture.

Which brings us back to Susan Hallowell. The Times twice avoided naming the naked woman in its Feb. 24 photo. It did, however, mention that the machines were made by AS&E. On AS&E's Web site, I found a press release complaining that pictures circulating in the press were obsolete because they'd been taken in 2003. Then I ran across a 2004 article that said Hallowell had demonstrated the technology the previous year. I typed her name into a search engine and up came a 2003 wire story with a photo of her, fully clothed, next to a monitor showing the same image that appeared in the Times. I didn't need to read a word. You could tell she was the same woman just by looking at her face.

Hallowell volunteered for this notoriety. But what happened to her mustn't happen to others. In the age of body scans, privacy means keeping your name, your face, and your nude image apart. That job doesn't end at the security gate; it begins there. Will your scan leak? "Images will not be printed, stored or transmitted," TSA swears on its Web site. Directly above that assurance, the agency has posted four nude pictures—"actual images shown to the Transportation Security Officer during the backscatter process." And you thought airport screeners had no sense of humor.

Enough with the fairy tales. We lost our innocence when the planes hit the towers. Now we're losing our modesty. If we're going to be ogled, at least protect us from being Googled.

Invasion of the naked body scanners. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

I am not sure I like the idea of being digitally stripped. They say the images cannot be stored and transmitted. If that is true, I don't understand how the agency was able to post four 'nude' pictures on its Web site.
What do you think about all this?

[galraen]

What do I think? I think I'm glad I'm closer to the end of my life than I am from the beginning. The way things are going the western world will be a total police state in 30 years time. The politicians provoke terrorism, then milk it for all it's worth to gain greater and greater control over the populace. When I first heard the term 'Politics of Fear' some years ago I was very sceptical, not any more.

[thantor3]

What, no pictures?!

I feel... violated.

[DesR85]

My opinion? I am quite perturbed by this scanning system, even if it means better security. However, I'm not surprised technology like this are bound to surface sooner or later. Why? Because when security of a nation is threatened, people will surely put security first, freedom second. The quote of Jack Thompson from Play.tm ([url="http://play.tm/story/8809"]link[/url]) pretty much sums it all up:

When the public pressure explodes all over the video game industry because of the mounting body count, which may occur on one morning in a school in the heartland of America, then parents will put their desire for "freedom" second to the safety of their children, and the pressure on our Congress to ban the games altogether will be enormous and irresistible.

P.S. I know that there is no similarity between the topic and the quote I posted but I just want to point out the similarity when it comes to such situations.

[Cartell]

Personally, this doesn't bother me much at all, for while I care about my privacy, the fact that his makes it much harder to repeat 9/11 makes me happy. However, I can see many people being offended and or felling degraded by this, so why not compromise. The rational being that if a strip search is deemed necessary then this could be offered instead. While that may sound all good and nice, what if they hide it well enough a strip search isn't needed? So it becomes a very tough subject to decide upon. I would have to say that if this really offends you then drive, but IMO security is important and this seems like a realitivly decent way to help defend against terrorism as long as it isn't abused.

[Malta Soron]

I'm under the impression that the current US security measures cost way more than the damage possible terrorist attacks would cause (that is including human lives, the value of which also is being calculated in money). Is that true?

[Sean The Owner]

this is breaking so many rights of freedom its just plain stupid, the next thing thats going to happen is the government turning into the KKK and being a white power country, its pathetic

[Cartell]

this is breaking so many rights of freedom its just plain stupid, the next thing thats going to happen is the government turning into the KKK and being a white power country, its pathetic

I can't see how this in anyway would cause they U.S. to become like the KKK. While this may not be the most ethical decision, it actually helps out minorities, particularly Arab minorities who may be searched more stringently simply because they are Arabs. This would make it more equal, not less, and therefore be the exact opposite of the KKK. Let it never be said that the U.S. disrobes people uneqaully.:laugh: We can all be equal and naked.:laugh:

[Sean The Owner]

if theyre going to search Arab people more than white people, it should be considered racist, if they do that, they should be forced to give extensive searches on EVERYONE even if its the nerdy business man who could never hurt anyone, or the president, or a black man with a bandana around his neck, there's always a chance that one of them could do something, but instead, they ONLY check the black man because his skin isnt the right colour in their minds

and now they search any Muslims more in-depth than anyone

in the 60's-90's apparantly they did it to anyone with a Slavic last name...

how is that NOT racist? search the dam white people just as much or maybe *I* being a white person, will bring a weapon on board and hijack some plane and crash it right into the white house because it isnt the right shade of white in my opinion

[Lady Dragonfly]

if theyre going to search Arab people more than white people...

Sean, Arabs are white people too.

... if they do that, they should be forced to give extensive searches on EVERYONE even if its the nerdy business man who could never hurt anyone, or the president...

Nerdy business men could never hurt anyone? Now that is what I call stereotyping! :laugh: You should watch Court TV. But you are right about our presidents. They don't hide bombs on their bodies; they have other ways to blow things up. And the only suicide they commit is political.

...and now they search any Muslims more in-depth than anyone...

Well, the rationale is the terrorists 'threatening the national security' are Arabs, so the profiling is understandable, at least.

...how is that NOT racist? search the dam white people just as much or maybe *I* being a white person, will bring a weapon on board and hijack some plane and crash it right into the white house because it isnt the right shade of white in my opinion

I think Cartell wanted to say that instead of the obvious search of the certain minority perceived as discrimination by some, they want to perform a total digital scan, so everybody would be equally stripped of their dignity, which is a lesser evil in his opinion.

I refer you to the original article:

The impersonality of machines can also filter out racism. Five years ago, the ACLU objected to body scans because they were administered selectively, "based on profiles that are racially discriminatory." But the best way to remove selection bias is to scan everyone.

You may even feel like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Total Recall when he was scanned by a similar scanner -- digitally naked but with a big gun .

[Curdis]

I'd be in favour of at least an equal scrutiny policy. Historically the vast majority of Hijacks/Bombings/Crashings in North America have been perpetrated by WAS style males. It would make some sense to reduce scrutiny of african americans and women until they at least appear in the statistics. - Curdis !

[Sean The Owner]

Sean, Arabs are white people too.

opps, its still racist though

Nerdy business men could never hurt anyone? Now that is what I call stereotyping! :laugh: You should watch Court TV. But you are right about our presidents. They don't hide bombs on their bodies; they have other ways to blow things up. And the only suicide they commit is political.

it was supposed to be a stereotype, the stereotype that the security doesnt search very thoroughly

Well, the rationale is the terrorists 'threatening the national security' are Arabs, so the profiling is understandable, at least.

screw what they think, either search everyone just as harshy, or have a higher chance of people getting weapons on a plane

I think Cartell wanted to say that instead of the obvious search of the certain minority perceived as discrimination by some, they want to perform a total digital scan, so everybody would be equally stripped of their dignity, which is a lesser evil in his opinion.

I refer you to the original article:

The impersonality of machines can also filter out racism. Five years ago, the ACLU objected to body scans because they were administered selectively, "based on profiles that are racially discriminatory." But the best way to remove selection bias is to scan everyone.

You may even feel like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Total Recall when he was scanned by a similar scanner -- digitally naked but with a big gun .

and i agree with the last sentence of that quote, scan EVERYONE

[Cartell]

and i agree with the last sentence of that quote, scan EVERYONE

That was what I was saying Sean , by scanning everyone it eliminates the issue of race from the whole issue.

[Moonbiter]

Oh, for crying out loud! Get a grip, folks! When the day comes that they perfect a body-scan that can see through clothing, and actually put some poor person in the position to do so, do you really think they'll have a standard of choice between skin, race or dress code? A friggin check-list? Jeez, you people need to work on the PC paranoia.

Do I mind? Hell, no! The only victim in this scenario is the person who has to sit and watch the screen. :laugh:

[BlueSky]

Pre 9-11, I took a trip to Europe, low budget, backpack and carry-on, hair was long then and tied back in ponytail...Was questioned in NYC airport by customs as I left...pulled aside in France on arrival, questioned....and on the way back, was searched in Zurich...back home, was dog sniffed and questioned in customs....
at that time...the only reason I could think of, was my looks. Older man with long hair, maybe ethnic background by looks, but nothing that would pinpoint me as one race or another.
Who know.....I just told people when I got back, that I allowed extra time at airports to answer questions...

[Sean The Owner]

everytime i go to an airport im searched for drugs...i only went non-sober on a plane once, and i didnt carry anything on me since im not stupid...i think its my punk rock-ism...

[Chanak]

I have to chime in with Moonbiter. Really, it's not worth getting in a tizzy about. I'm more bothered by governmental eavesdropping than I am innovative scanning methods such as this one.