TSA and the nudie scanners (spinoff from the college sex tribual thread)

[Loren Pechtel]

You didn't describe it; you just threw the accusation out there without explanation. But now that you have described it, I'd be interested in participating in a new thread about it. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion the new scanners are "completely blind to metal carried beside the body", or why TSA shouldn't be trying to catch drug mules. But that discussion is out of place in this thread.

You used an example of a government law enforcement agency acting as an arm of the government to dispute what, exactly?

I didn't go into the details because I've talked about it before.

Here's a guy demonstrating how to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA

And two years later some scientists confirmed what he was saying: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/study...an-be-smuggled-past-tsas-x-ray-body-scanners/

As for why they shouldn't be hunting drug mules: Consenting to a safety-related search is not giving up your Sixth-amendment rights against unreasonable searches. They only get to do the minimum search needed for the safety purpose. Since they have replaced the metal detectors with an inferior scanner the purpose can't be safety--it can only be to detect cash or drugs carried on the body (things that the metal detector won't react to.) The supposed purpose is the detection of bombs--but the image is of low enough resolution that all you have to do is deny them an edge and they can't see it--a block of C4 they'll see, a pancake of C4 with the edges feathered against the body is invisible. Meanwhile you wear a loose shirt and carry the metal parts of the bomb in the seams on the side of the shirt where they are over empty space when you assume the position in the scanner.

It really sounds like you don't give a hoot about protecting people from improper intrusion by the government.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You didn't describe it; you just threw the accusation out there without explanation. But now that you have described it, I'd be interested in participating in a new thread about it. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion the new scanners are "completely blind to metal carried beside the body", or why TSA shouldn't be trying to catch drug mules. But that discussion is out of place in this thread.

You used an example of a government law enforcement agency acting as an arm of the government to dispute what, exactly?

I didn't go into the details because I've talked about it before.

Here's a guy demonstrating how to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA

And two years later some scientists confirmed what he was saying: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/study...an-be-smuggled-past-tsas-x-ray-body-scanners/

As for why they shouldn't be hunting drug mules: Consenting to a safety-related search is not giving up your Sixth-amendment rights against unreasonable searches. They only get to do the minimum search needed for the safety purpose. Since they have replaced the metal detectors with an inferior scanner the purpose can't be safety--it can only be to detect cash or drugs carried on the body (things that the metal detector won't react to.) The supposed purpose is the detection of bombs--but the image is of low enough resolution that all you have to do is deny them an edge and they can't see it--a block of C4 they'll see, a pancake of C4 with the edges feathered against the body is invisible. Meanwhile you wear a loose shirt and carry the metal parts of the bomb in the seams on the side of the shirt where they are over empty space when you assume the position in the scanner.

It really sounds like you don't give a hoot about protecting people from improper intrusion by the government.

The Israelis have a scanner for detecting bombs. Once the bomb is detected, it is detonated within the blast proof unit along with the person.

 

[Arctish]

You didn't describe it; you just threw the accusation out there without explanation. But now that you have described it, I'd be interested in participating in a new thread about it. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion the new scanners are "completely blind to metal carried beside the body", or why TSA shouldn't be trying to catch drug mules. But that discussion is out of place in this thread.

You used an example of a government law enforcement agency acting as an arm of the government to dispute what, exactly?

I didn't go into the details because I've talked about it before.

Here's a guy demonstrating how to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA

And two years later some scientists confirmed what he was saying: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/study...an-be-smuggled-past-tsas-x-ray-body-scanners/

As for why they shouldn't be hunting drug mules: Consenting to a safety-related search is not giving up your Sixth-amendment rights against unreasonable searches. They only get to do the minimum search needed for the safety purpose. Since they have replaced the metal detectors with an inferior scanner the purpose can't be safety--it can only be to detect cash or drugs carried on the body (things that the metal detector won't react to.) The supposed purpose is the detection of bombs--but the image is of low enough resolution that all you have to do is deny them an edge and they can't see it--a block of C4 they'll see, a pancake of C4 with the edges feathered against the body is invisible. Meanwhile you wear a loose shirt and carry the metal parts of the bomb in the seams on the side of the shirt where they are over empty space when you assume the position in the scanner.

It really sounds like you don't give a hoot about protecting people from improper intrusion by the government.

I don't recall even discussing this topic on this board. Perhaps you can provide a quote in which it sounds like I don't give a hoot about protecting people from improper intrusion by the government. The only thing I remember that comes close is when I objected to the government intruding into the social arrangements and medical decisions made by fully informed consenting adults.

Anyway wrt the reason scanners are now used instead of metal detectors:

Full-body scanners are more effective than traditional metal detectors at screening for explosives and other weapons, the TSA said....

...The TSA noted the “critical weakness” of traditional metal detectors is that they miss weapons not made out of metal, including some explosive devices.

Full-body scanners, on the other hand, detect “weapons, explosives, and other objects concealed under a person’s clothing that may not trigger a metal detector,” according to the security agency.

"The technology bounces electromagnetic waves off the body to detect anomalies,” it explained. "If an anomaly is detected, a pat-down of the area where the anomaly is located is usually performed to determine if a threat is present.” <link>

Also, the US Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. has ruled that the TSA's use of full body scanners does not violate the Constitution.

I'd be happier if the TSA would come up with a set of rules that don't change every few weeks. And I find the TSA chokepoint aggravating, especially at busy airports. But when it comes to violating Constitutional rights, I'm more concerned about the unlawful imprisonment that happens when people are stuck in an aircraft on the ground for hours on end. IMO that's a much bigger transgression against Constitutional rights than a scan to see if someone is carrying contraband or weapons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't go into the details because I've talked about it before.

Here's a guy demonstrating how to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA

And two years later some scientists confirmed what he was saying: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/study...an-be-smuggled-past-tsas-x-ray-body-scanners/

As for why they shouldn't be hunting drug mules: Consenting to a safety-related search is not giving up your Sixth-amendment rights against unreasonable searches. They only get to do the minimum search needed for the safety purpose. Since they have replaced the metal detectors with an inferior scanner the purpose can't be safety--it can only be to detect cash or drugs carried on the body (things that the metal detector won't react to.) The supposed purpose is the detection of bombs--but the image is of low enough resolution that all you have to do is deny them an edge and they can't see it--a block of C4 they'll see, a pancake of C4 with the edges feathered against the body is invisible. Meanwhile you wear a loose shirt and carry the metal parts of the bomb in the seams on the side of the shirt where they are over empty space when you assume the position in the scanner.

It really sounds like you don't give a hoot about protecting people from improper intrusion by the government.

I don't recall even discussing this topic on this board. Perhaps you can provide a quote in which it sounds like I don't give a hoot about protecting people from improper intrusion by the government. The only thing I remember that comes close is when I objected to the government intruding into the social arrangements and medical decisions made by fully informed consenting adults.

Anyway wrt the reason scanners are now used instead of metal detectors:

Full-body scanners are more effective than traditional metal detectors at screening for explosives and other weapons, the TSA said....

...The TSA noted the “critical weakness” of traditional metal detectors is that they miss weapons not made out of metal, including some explosive devices.

Full-body scanners, on the other hand, detect “weapons, explosives, and other objects concealed under a person’s clothing that may not trigger a metal detector,” according to the security agency.

"The technology bounces electromagnetic waves off the body to detect anomalies,” it explained. "If an anomaly is detected, a pat-down of the area where the anomaly is located is usually performed to determine if a threat is present.” <link>

Also, the US Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. has ruled that the TSA's use of full body scanners does not violate the Constitution.

I'd be happier if the TSA would come up with a set of rules that don't change every few weeks. And I find the TSA chokepoint aggravating, especially at busy airports. But when it comes to violating Constitutional rights, I'm more concerned about the unlawful imprisonment that happens when people are stuck in an aircraft on the ground for hours on end. IMO that's a much bigger transgression against Constitutional rights than a scan to see if someone is carrying contraband or weapons.

The courts have quite a record of condoning abuses of the Constitution these days.

 

[ronburgundy]

Also, the US Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. has ruled that the TSA's use of full body scanners does not violate the Constitution.

They made that ruling based entirely upon their presumption that the goal and use of the body scannners "is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack,"

That supports Loren's argument that it is unconstitutional to be using these scanners to detect criminal activity not directly tied to protecting public safety.

However, the fact that the scanner's can be fooled doesn't prove they are less effective than metal detectors at detecting all the types of plausible threats to public safety, which would seem like what needs to be shown to argue they are any less constitutional than metal detectors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, the US Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. has ruled that the TSA's use of full body scanners does not violate the Constitution.

They made that ruling based entirely upon their presumption that the goal and use of the body scannners "is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack,"

That supports Loren's argument that it is unconstitutional to be using these scanners to detect criminal activity not directly tied to protecting public safety.

However, the fact that the scanner's can be fooled doesn't prove they are less effective than metal detectors at detecting all the types of plausible threats to public safety, which would seem like what needs to be shown to argue they are any less constitutional than metal detectors.

It doesn't matter if they're less effective at all threats, but rather what is the worst threat that can slip past them. The bad guys get to choose the weapon based on the security, it's not random.

Realistically, the threats are guns, knives and bombs.

Guns: Realistically, either will find these.

Knives: Metal detector wins. With careful tailoring you can get one through the nudie scanner in the space beside your body.

Bombs: Neither is effective against a well-concealed bomb. The metal detector has a chance against the detonator but it's probably too small. The nudie scanner wins against a poorly designed bomb--but the bombmakers can perfectly well look up the flaws in the system and tailor their bombs to get through.

Now, the non-threats:

The metal detector has no chance against money or drugs. Both are hard to hide from the nudie scanner.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Briefly:

It's a 4th Amendment issue, not a 6th. The 6th deals largely with right to counsel, to have witnesses testify on your behalf, and to confront witnesses against you. It's the 4th that deals with search and seizure.

Now, if one is entering the country, American citizen or otherwise, the 4th Amendment for any practical purpose does not exist. The Court says that it's "diminished," but in fact it's non-existent. For example, when government agents seize a person's phone or computer, the agents are required to get a warrant first. But at the border, there is no warrant required and the authorities can run a forensic examination of your electronics without probable cause and even keep them for up to 60 days. That is, they can just pick you out of a crowd for no reason and rifle through anything you have, and hold onto it for X period of time if you're coming in from overseas (Mexico and Canada included).

However, when it comes to the search of your inner person, such as a cavity search, a warrant is required along with reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard than probable cause.

A quick opinion is that a body scanner, because it is not physically invasive, likely does not trigger 4th Amendment search protections, particularly if you're coming in from a foreign nation. Keep in mind that in such circumstances, an airport in Chicago is functionally a border. It may be a different matter when traveling from say, L.A. to Kansas City, but because it's been going on so long, it's probably not a violation. In other words, a petitioning party would have brought a case and won it by now if it was.

What's at work here is national security policy. The fact is that the government is obligated to protect the security of the American citizenry and the American citizenry expects their government to do so. This is no different or more extreme than what any other any other people in any other nation expect of their government.

Keep in mind too that our rights are not absolute. There are exceptions and limitations to every single one of them. We can own guns, but not .50 caliber machine-guns. We have free speech but are not permitted to incite to riot. Accordingly, we have search and seizure rights, but they are severely diminished at the borders and in other circumstances where national security is at risk.

 

[barbos]

Here's a guy demonstrating how to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA

And two years later some scientists confirmed what he was saying: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/study...an-be-smuggled-past-tsas-x-ray-body-scanners/

Take additional scan from 90 degrees angle, problem solved!

 

[zorq]

Here's a guy demonstrating how to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA

And two years later some scientists confirmed what he was saying: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/study...an-be-smuggled-past-tsas-x-ray-body-scanners/

Take additional scan from 90 degrees angle, problem solved!

Did you read the Wired article where they hid a knife on a person's spine with Teflon tape and they hid plastic explosives molded to the person's body and a detonator in the bellybutton? But really detonators can be made to look like the button on a pair of jeans in one of these things anyway so that's probably never been an issue.

 

[beero1000]

Take additional scan from 90 degrees angle, problem solved!

Did you read the Wired article where they hid a knife on a person's spine with Teflon tape and they hid plastic explosives molded to the person's body and a detonator in the bellybutton? But really detonators can be made to look like the button on a pair of jeans in one of these things anyway so that's probably never been an issue.

 

[barbos]

Take additional scan from 90 degrees angle, problem solved!

Did you read the Wired article where they hid a knife on a person's spine with Teflon tape and they hid plastic explosives molded to the person's body and a detonator in the bellybutton? But really detonators can be made to look like the button on a pair of jeans in one of these things anyway so that's probably never been an issue.

No, I just watched the video. But teflon knife trick will not work with 90 degrees picture.

 

[zorq]

Did you read the Wired article where they hid a knife on a person's spine with Teflon tape and they hid plastic explosives molded to the person's body and a detonator in the bellybutton? But really detonators can be made to look like the button on a pair of jeans in one of these things anyway so that's probably never been an issue.

No, I just watched the video. But teflon knife trick will not work with 90 degrees picture.

It looked like it worked great from any angle.

 

[barbos]

No, I just watched the video. But teflon knife trick will not work with 90 degrees picture.

It looked like it worked great from any angle.

Article does not say that. They don't even show any pictures of knife&spine pictures.

 

[ronburgundy]

They made that ruling based entirely upon their presumption that the goal and use of the body scannners "is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack,"

That supports Loren's argument that it is unconstitutional to be using these scanners to detect criminal activity not directly tied to protecting public safety.

However, the fact that the scanner's can be fooled doesn't prove they are less effective than metal detectors at detecting all the types of plausible threats to public safety, which would seem like what needs to be shown to argue they are any less constitutional than metal detectors.

It doesn't matter if they're less effective at all threats, but rather what is the worst threat that can slip past them. The bad guys get to choose the weapon based on the security, it's not random.

Realistically, the threats are guns, knives and bombs.

Guns: Realistically, either will find these.

Knives: Metal detector wins. With careful tailoring you can get one through the nudie scanner in the space beside your body.

Bombs: Neither is effective against a well-concealed bomb. The metal detector has a chance against the detonator but it's probably too small. The nudie scanner wins against a poorly designed bomb--but the bombmakers can perfectly well look up the flaws in the system and tailor their bombs to get through.

Now, the non-threats:

The metal detector has no chance against money or drugs. Both are hard to hide from the nudie scanner.

So, you think that metal detectors are just as likely to find plastic guns that are becoming more likely and more powerful everyday with 3-D printing?

If scanner is more likely to detect plastic guns, which are a greater threat than knives, then the scanners would win on overall threat reduction.

Also, money and drugs should be much easier to hide from the scanner than guns.

BTW, is there a tech reason why metal detection cannot be added to the scanners and do both at once?

Also, you are making the erroneous assumption that these systems are useless unless they prevent threats from the more committed and intelligent terrorists who do all their research and spend years planning an attack they are willing to die for and thus willing to get caught for too. Their are other kinds of threats, like lone mass killers, who don't currently bother with such a hard target like airports but would if these security measures were eliminated. If plastic guns become widespread and easier to get, then the scanners will do far more than metal detectors at keeping these other less inventive types of threats from picking airports and airplanes as targets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Now, if one is entering the country, American citizen or otherwise, the 4th Amendment for any practical purpose does not exist. The Court says that it's "diminished," but in fact it's non-existent. For example, when government agents seize a person's phone or computer, the agents are required to get a warrant first. But at the border, there is no warrant required and the authorities can run a forensic examination of your electronics without probable cause and even keep them for up to 60 days. That is, they can just pick you out of a crowd for no reason and rifle through anything you have, and hold onto it for X period of time if you're coming in from overseas (Mexico and Canada included).

Here I'll agree. We've had our belongings searched several times simply because we're coming from China. In one case I specifically know that everyone on our plane got such a search. It's always been agriculture-focused, they've never given a hoot about electronics.

A quick opinion is that a body scanner, because it is not physically invasive, likely does not trigger 4th Amendment search protections, particularly if you're coming in from a foreign nation. Keep in mind that in such circumstances, an airport in Chicago is functionally a border. It may be a different matter when traveling from say, L.A. to Kansas City, but because it's been going on so long, it's probably not a violation. In other words, a petitioning party would have brought a case and won it by now if it was.

Big problem here: The nudie scanners aren't being used on incoming international passengers, they're being used on departing (both international and domestic) passengers. (Although an incoming international passenger may become an outgoing passenger if the city isn't their final destination.)

What's at work here is national security policy. The fact is that the government is obligated to protect the security of the American citizenry and the American citizenry expects their government to do so. This is no different or more extreme than what any other any other people in any other nation expect of their government.

Keep in mind too that our rights are not absolute. There are exceptions and limitations to every single one of them. We can own guns, but not .50 caliber machine-guns. We have free speech but are not permitted to incite to riot. Accordingly, we have search and seizure rights, but they are severely diminished at the borders and in other circumstances where national security is at risk.

What you're missing is that the nudie scanners are actually a downgrade in the legitimate security interest. They're only an upgrade in the ability to detect something which bears no threat--and that's why I'm saying they are an improper search.

(And nitpick: It's legal to own a .50 cal machine gun in most states. Lots of hoops to jump through and they're as expensive as hell to operate but you can get one.)

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a guy demonstrating how to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA

And two years later some scientists confirmed what he was saying: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/study...an-be-smuggled-past-tsas-x-ray-body-scanners/

Take additional scan from 90 degrees angle, problem solved!

And that would double the scanning time--the nudie scanners are already a bottleneck in airport security, you would have just cut the capacity of the airport in half. You would have an awful lot of people screaming bloody murder over that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, you think that metal detectors are just as likely to find plastic guns that are becoming more likely and more powerful everyday with 3-D printing?

If scanner is more likely to detect plastic guns, which are a greater threat than knives, then the scanners would win on overall threat reduction.

Also, money and drugs should be much easier to hide from the scanner than guns.

You put the plastic gun in your carry-on, the x-ray isn't going to notice it.

Money and drugs are harder to hide because they're amorphous and of a density that they can't tell from plastic explosives--and thus might draw a search. (Books can cause the same problem.)

BTW, is there a tech reason why metal detection cannot be added to the scanners and do both at once?

Good point, you wouldn't even need to. Just put the metal detector at the exit from the nudie scanner.

Also, you are making the erroneous assumption that these systems are useless unless they prevent threats from the more committed and intelligent terrorists who do all their research and spend years planning an attack they are willing to die for and thus willing to get caught for too. Their are other kinds of threats, like lone mass killers, who don't currently bother with such a hard target like airports but would if these security measures were eliminated. If plastic guns become widespread and easier to get, then the scanners will do far more than metal detectors at keeping these other less inventive types of threats from picking airports and airplanes as targets.

1) The metal detectors kept the crazies out already. That's why they were introduced--the airlines got tired of their planes being hijacked to Havana.

2) The stated purpose of the nudie scanners was the shoe bomber (but shoes go through the x-ray these days anyway) and the underwear bomber (and we know that properly feathered explosives are invisible to the nudie scanner.)

Now, it's possible that they jumped at the scanners without realizing their weaknesses and are not willing to back down but I think it's much more likely they like their value in hunting druggies.

 

[Arctish]

Two quick points:

The article was published in 2014 and says the scanners Loren is talking about haven't been used in airports since 2012. Thet were replaced with a different type of scanner the authors haven't been able to test.

The Rapiscan Secure 1000 machines the researchers tested haven’t actually been used in airports since last year, when they were replaced by millimeter wave scanners designed to better protect passengers’ privacy. But the X-ray scanners are still installed in courthouses, jails, and other government security checkpoints around the country....

...None of researchers among the three universities has been able to obtain a millimeter wave scanner, so they’re not sure whether any of same vulnerabilities they found apply to the full-body scanning machines currently used in American airports.

Also, as to the alleged superior ability of the metal detectors to detect weapons, it ain't so. Years ago a visiting friend showed me the zytel bayonet he carried in an arm sheath everywhere he went, including on airplanes. The old airport metal detectors were completely unable to detect the thing. The nudie scanners probably would have shown it even along the side of his body and would have shown the sheath. The newer millimeter scanners can also reveal such items, and since they do a sweep the simple trick of exploiting viewing angles won't work.

 

[zorq]

It looked like it worked great from any angle.

Article does not say that. They don't even show any pictures of knife&spine pictures.

https://radsec.org/secure1000-sec14.pdf

1.5 cm can easily fit in the groove between the shoulderblades or some people's spines a 90 degree scan would also likely fail.

 

[barbos]

Article does not say that. They don't even show any pictures of knife&spine pictures.

https://radsec.org/secure1000-sec14.pdf

1.5 cm can easily fit in the groove between the shoulderblades or some people's spines a 90 degree scan would also likely fail.

Well, there is no 90 degrees picture there. And I actually see the whole block on the right picture, and I bet it will look more pronounced on 90 degree picture.
Anyway, I agree, it seems that these x-ray scanners were not tested properly.
I think they need pat-down robot, that will sure solve most of the problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Two quick points:

The article was published in 2014 and says the scanners Loren is talking about haven't been used in airports since 2012. Thet were replaced with a different type of scanner the authors haven't been able to test.

The Rapiscan Secure 1000 machines the researchers tested haven’t actually been used in airports since last year, when they were replaced by millimeter wave scanners designed to better protect passengers’ privacy. But the X-ray scanners are still installed in courthouses, jails, and other government security checkpoints around the country....

...None of researchers among the three universities has been able to obtain a millimeter wave scanner, so they’re not sure whether any of same vulnerabilities they found apply to the full-body scanning machines currently used in American airports.

Also, as to the alleged superior ability of the metal detectors to detect weapons, it ain't so. Years ago a visiting friend showed me the zytel bayonet he carried in an arm sheath everywhere he went, including on airplanes. The old airport metal detectors were completely unable to detect the thing. The nudie scanners probably would have shown it even along the side of his body and would have shown the sheath. The newer millimeter scanners can also reveal such items, and since they do a sweep the simple trick of exploiting viewing angles won't work.

But the new scanners have the same fundamental flaw as the old--metal shows as black, the background beside the body shows as black. Black on black is invisible.