Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Backscatter X-Rays Coming to Airports 493

Posted by michael from the nudie-celebrity-screen-captures dept.
TSMABob writes "Wired News reports that a recent, but expensive, technology of backscatter may grace airport security in the future. Nice Bombs Ya Got There is an article that explains how this technology is far superior to the metal detectors of today, pointing out that 'Richard Reid, convicted of trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic jetliner with explosives in his shoes, walked through metal detectors at Orly Airport in Paris several times before boarding the plane.' Read More about backscatter x-rays and their ability to pick up non-metallic objects."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Backscatter X-Rays Coming to Airports More

Backscatter X-Rays Coming to Airports

Comments Filter:

  • You know what you're thinking... (Score:5, Funny)

    by IpsissimusMarr ( 672940 ) * on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:05PM (#6313022) Journal
    Yeah yeah, I know its going to be repeated at least 300 times in this story... but I just can't help myself.

    X-RAY VISION IS FINALLY A REALITY!!!

    That is all, you may now go back to your regularly scheduled /.'ing.

    • ... imagine Natalie Portman behind a Beowulf cluster of these things!

      • you asked for it... (Score:5, Funny)

        by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis.gmail@com> on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:31PM (#6313295) Homepage
        Only x posts and slashdotted! Must be running their site on product "A".

        Imagine a beowolf cluster of item "B", on a "C".

        Just wait till the RIAA hears about this! and/or Just wait till the MPAA sees this! and/or Just wait till the **AA hears and/or sees this!

        Something SCO would do....Or Sue! Sue! call SCO

        BSD is dying, only a few million users left!

        Oh and MS knows security like they know open competition.

        I used Mozilla once!

        1. Action "D"
        2. ???
        3. Result "E"

        MS sucks. or MSFT sucks. or Microsoft sucks. or Micro$oft sucks or Micro$loth sucks.

        Linux has a far superior kitch factor.

        I'm going to patent patenting. I'm going to patent the wheel, air, fire, water, item "F". Quick hide it from bezos.

        I'm going to sue for violating my first post (patent|copyright).

        Check my l33t signature!

        Accomplishing goal L: Cost "G". Accomplishing goal M: Cost "H", for everything else there is item "I".

        Something, something, something, private part [giggle like the school child you are], something, something, something.

        something, other, something, Natalie Portman, something

        Boochicka wowwow, something, hot grits and person "J", who may or not be Natalie Portman

        Some guys widespread anus [goatse.cx]

        In Soviet Russia, Item "J" does "K" to YOU!

        Apple R0xx0rs!

        Apple Sucks!

        Kde!

        Gnome!

        Amigas aren't dead!

        Polling:
        [options a-g] ...
        h. [unable to participate] you insensitive clod!
        i. [cowboy neal poll option]

        all your "L" are belong to "M"

      • Re:More cliched than that... (Score:4, Funny)

        by mblase ( 200735 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:59PM (#6313569)
        That would be so boring. I mean, the x-rays can't penetrate dense materials, so you'd never be able to see what's running inside all those PC boxes.

      • Will EVERYONE get scanned? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Xandar01 ( 612884 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @04:05PM (#6314817) Journal
        I remember hearing some airlines setting up special lanes for VIPs, a.k.a. rich people, to pass through the security checkpoints faster. So as these backscatter checkpoints start showing up in airports, will the rich and famous wiggle their way out of having to walk through these things? Is it fair?

        On one hand, I'd have to say that well off people rarely blowup the planes that they are riding on. On the other hand, money can buy a lot of things. Can you really trust someone because they have paid for VIP privileges?

        I for one don't think it should an option to buy your way out of a security scan that "everyone" is required to go through.
    • I didn't use to be afraid of flying until now. I will probably be dropping a few pounds before I go on another plane.

      I wonder how many perverts will find a way to get a job working behind one of these machines.

      • Re:You know what you're thinking... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JackMonkey ( 631985 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @02:21PM (#6313788)
        Seriously, though...this thing brings up some major social and privacy issues.
        • Would you want your wife and kids walking through one of these things knowing that a complete stranger will be looking at them naked?
        • What if some pedophile gets a job working these things just to get his jollies from watching children go through?
        • What about people that are so self-concious about their weight that they will hold up the line indefinitely rather than go through security?
        • Are these scanned images akin to public pornography?

        • Re:You know what you're thinking... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Nogami_Saeko ( 466595 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @02:54PM (#6314048)
          What if they were used to stop people from blowing up planes and killing people?

          A single person not being killed because one of these machines caught someone before they had the chance to get on a plane makes it all worthwhile in my books.

          Besides, I seriously doubt there would be any way to record/save the images created on the machines so it's not like a screener would be grabbing them and posting them on the net or anything.

          A screener could be looking at thousands, or tens of thousands of people a day - I think the "oh! nudies!" aspect of the job would grow old real fast. I mean, how much do people pay any attention to pr0nmail that shows up in the email box? You just automatically hit delete and move on.

          N.

          • Re:You know what you're thinking... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @05:17PM (#6315398)
            What if they were used to stop people from blowing up planes and killing people?

            Yeah, it's like so many people are blowing up planes today. Four groups in what, ten years?

            A single person not being killed because one of these machines caught someone before they had the chance to get on a plane makes it all worthwhile in my books.

            I'm sorry, but this is lunacy. By this argument, we'd immediately ban the automobile. Think of how many people die because of them today. If we'd save just ONE life by banning them... and hot dogs (people do choke to death on them, you know. If we save just one life...

            Besides, I seriously doubt there would be any way to record/save the images created on the machines so it's not like a screener would be grabbing them and posting them on the net or anything.

            Huh? That's right, computers never have any means of saving images. Just how do you think they are going to train the people to run these, keep a stock of different kinds of bombs on hand, or keep a stock set of saved pictures of people carrying said bombs?

            And how will they review a suspicious image -- make the person stand in the picture booth until they decide? Nice, clue him in that he's being scrutinized so he sets the bomb off in the middle of the line.

            A screener could be looking at thousands, or tens of thousands of people a day -

            Oh, of course, invasion of privacy is ok as long as it happens to lots of people.

            Here's what you should be thinking about. That fellow mentioned in the summary, the ShoeBomber? He wasn't just passing through security at Orly, he was actually IN POLICE CUSTODY WEARING HIS SHOE BOMBS the day before he got on the plane. They let him go. Fancy hardware simply cannot replace common sense, but then, we're talking about people who idolize Jerry Lewis.

  • Another version of the same story. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Peter Cooper ( 660482 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:05PM (#6313025) Homepage Journal
    There's another new article on this in the 'Globe and Mail'. [globeandmail.com] It's a bit more indepth, and features a really, er, 'nice' picture of a seemingly shaven lady testing out the machine.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:07PM (#6313043)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Obligatory considerations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serial frame ( 236591 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:08PM (#6313056)
    You know, maybe this will get me through the airport a little quicker. But then again, maybe it'll just add up on the delays. How so, you wonder? Consider the current climate in airport security. Not only will the person itself be under much scrutiny in the event of, say, a PDA left in a breast pocket (could be hard to discern from a block of C-4), but I'm sure the person will be delayed even further by background checks and such.

    This technology doesn't seem it will replace traditional X-ray, as I'm sure people will still (as gross as it sounds) be smuggling drugs and evil nanotech warriors in plastic baggies in their...rectums? (que AC goatse man reply)

    I certainly hope I don't end up getting skin cancer or something, but then again, I'm paranoid, right?
    • Not only will the person itself be under much scrutiny in the event of, say, a PDA left in a breast pocket (could be hard to discern from a block of C-4).... That is why they have you remove them before you pass through the metal detectors.
    • Falsies.

      She could be flat-chested, and have packed her bra with C-4, with a detonator cleverly hidden in her belt buckle or shoes.

      Then she could assemble the bomb(s) in the lavatory on the plane.

      A suprising number of women who are too chicken to get a boob job wear falsies. So a security person, spotting falsies, would necessarily need to do a tactile examination to make sure they're made of squishy silicone, instead of not-so-squishy C-4.
      On the other hand, some nitrate slurries could be made to resemb

  • Censorship? (Score:2, Funny)

    by svenjob ( 671129 )
    Anyone else notice her lack of nipples? Were they censored away? Or did the SCO and Amazon.com jointly patent X-Ray pr0n®?
    • It's probably just that they don't show up well, the X rays seem to penetrate the skin maybe an inch or so and it even looks like you can see her brain, and nasal cavities slightly. Also, I doubt the melanin in the nipples reflects X-rays to a significant degree.
  • This looks very promising (except, maybe, to the people manning this machine: they'll probably get sick of watching fat people "naked" for hours at a time).

    How difficult would it be to make a portable version of this? Imagine, if you will, a portable version that could be discreetly carried around (maybe even in a van or something). I bet suicide bombings would soon become a thing of the past.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:2, Informative)

      by Thng ( 457255 )
      At the moment, very difficult. One of the problems with the device is that they're already fairly large. Cnn had an article [cnn.com] yesterday.

      Null said the biggest problem with the backscatter machines may be their size. One version, the BodySearch system made by Billerica, Massachusetts-based American Science & Engineering is about 4-feet by 7-feet by 10-feet -- awfully big for an airport lobby, Null said.

  • Health risks for frequent flyers? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:09PM (#6313067) Homepage Journal
    Aside from the rather titilating views that these folks will be getting I am wondering about the health risks that constant bombardment of X-rays to frequent flyers. What about kids, infants and pregnant women?

    Man, perhaps purchasing that new Cessna Skylane is getting more attractive.

    • The MSNBC version [msnbc.com] of this story says "The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine."
    • RTFA man. "The radiation dosage is about the same as sunshine, Hallowell said." So you'd have to be a real frequent flyer to have as much chance of getting skin cancer as, say, a sun worshiper/surfer dude.

      'Course since most geeks haven't been exposed to the sun in years..... ;-)

    • 3 microREMs (Score:5, Informative)

      by sleepingsquirrel ( 587025 ) * <Greg@Buchholz.sleepingsquirrel@org> on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:22PM (#6313196) Homepage Journal
      According to the FAQ [rapiscan.com]for one of these machines...
      Q: How much radiant energy is a person exposed to?

      A: Each full body scan of the SECURE 1000 produces approximately 3 microREMs of emission. This is equivalent to the exposure every person receives each five minutes from naturally occurring background environmental radioactivity.

      Q: Is background radiation exposure really a good comparison?
      A: Yes, because SECURE 1000 scanning and background radiation both expose a large portion of the body to a very low level of x-rays. The only difference is that background radiation has slightly higher x-ray energy resulting in deeper penetration.

      Q: What about exposure levels for individuals who are frequent flyers or for employees in companies or high security facilities who have to be screened each day?
      A: Under current international guidelines (such as the ANSI 43.17 Standard) up to 5000 scans per year can be conducted safely.

      Q: Will SECURE 1000 detect objects in the body?
      A: No, the x-rays penetrate only about 1/10 (0.1) inch of the skin. Any object that would be deeper than that level would not be detected. Under current regulations generally body cavity inspections must be performed by high dose medical x-ray systems in the presence of a medical professional or body cavity searches must be performed manually by trained enforcement personnel.

  • Since I'd never heard of X-Ray backscatter before I'd thought I'd do a google search, but I couldn't find much in the way of technical details of the how and why xray backscatter works. There didn't seem to be much for academic/research papers available. Is this a relatively new thing? The article mentions that the xrays are bounced off of you, but I wonder what dosage you would be exposed to. Are they using an xray source, or is it background radiation? These were my findings so far...

    More pictures [as-e.com].
    More detail [radjournal.com] as to how the machine works.

    • Re:Any good technical descriptions? (Score:4, Informative)

      by rusty0101 ( 565565 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:30PM (#6313280) Homepage Journal
      From the perspective of a Niel Stephenson reader, think of this as a x-ray frequency varient of milameter radar.

      What this does is send extreamly low dose x-ray radiation in the direction of the subject being scanned. Some percentage fo the x-rays (being extreamly high energy, even if it is low dose) will pass through the subject. Some percentage will be absorbed by the subject. Some other percentage will be reflected by the subject.

      A percentage of the reflected x-rays will be captured by an x-ray sensitive varient of a CCD and an image will be created by a computer.

      The demonstrations so far indicate that x-rays for the most part are passing right through clothing, and being reflected by the skin of the subject. Harder objects (such as plastic and metals) are either going to absorbe a higher percentage than usuall, or reflect a higher percentage than the subject, and will present visable difference in the image collected.

      Some training will be required, however most weapons are going to be fairly visable to this equipment.

      I have not heard however if glass is something that this equipment will recognize. We could be back to seeing metal and ceramic knives, but not glass.

      Much of this is my own opinion, so take what you will from it. Critizism is welcome as well.

      -Rusty
    • I don't know about this technology specifically, but off the top of my head, I would assume that they are using a lower frequency of X ray radiation (lower voltage in the X ray tube).

      Traditional X rays work by passing through the body and are literally absorbed by dense material like bone. The resulting image shows regions of high X ray absorption. The reason it works is because the X rays have high enough energy to penetrate the body and come out the other side (except, of course, for where they are abso

    • I'm pulling this out of my ass, but it seems pretty reasonable.

      X-ray goes through things; they put an emitter on one side of you, a reciever on the other side, and they watch where things don't penetrate.

      Backscatter puts the reciever beside the transmitter, and the watch what bounces.

      Put the two together, and you get the best of both worlds.

    • Re:Any good technical descriptions? (Score:4, Informative)

      by SpeedRacer ( 41138 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:53PM (#6313523)
      X-ray backscattering has been studied on an experimental level pretty extensively for quite a while. Perform a Google search on bremsstrahlung. Bremsstrahlung means "braking radiation." Electron bremsstrahlung is the most common. When an electron is deflected by the electron cloud of an atom, that acceleration produces an X-ray at an angle that is oblique to the original direction of the electron's path.

      My Bachelor's degree is in Physics, and my junior/senior research back in 1987-1989 was on bremsstrahlung. You can find more on the subject at:

      http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Bremsstrah lung.html [wolfram.com]
  • Sorry, but there wasn't enough info on either of the links...

    Does this mean that they will be using X-rays on us everytime we pass through a security checkpoint?

    Already I question how safe all that stuff is, especially standing in front of the opening of the X-ray machine while I put my carry-ons on the conveyor belt.

    Although the technology is really cool, is this something I want to subject myself to, especially if I am a business traveller?

  • No shoes? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sharlskdy ( 460886 ) <.ten.sulet. .ta. .namttocs.> on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:10PM (#6313074) Homepage
    Except Richard Reid had the explosives in his shoes .

    Are these scatter rays going to show shoes as well? The photo they have shown misses the feet!

    This seems very, very close to the security system they had in Total Recall!

    • Re:No shoes? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by morcheeba ( 260908 )
      Exactly.

      And it also misses weapons hidden in body cavities (including the obvious i/o ports, but also under this woman's breasts)

    • Re:No shoes? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jmichaelg ( 148257 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:19PM (#6313173) Journal
      They'll just extend the scan to include the feet as well.

      The bigger problem is even then it's not clear his explosive would have shown up. He didn't have any wiring or timer - just plain explosive shaped to look like part of the shoe. If whoever made made both shoes had made the shoes the same way so they matched, who is going to recognize a pair of explosive shoe tongues? Sniffing? Without getting explicit, there are ways of circumventing the chemical sniffers as well. As Abraham Lincoln once said "If a man wants to kill me, he'll find a way."

    • Re:No shoes? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Colonel Panic ( 15235 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:21PM (#6313186)
      Not only that, but shoes are mostly made of plastic, rubber, etc. that would look just the same as plastic explosives.

      Those who are willing to trade security for freedom deserve neither --GWB

  • so long as i dont have to take my damn shoes off (Score:3, Interesting)

    by *weasel ( 174362 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:10PM (#6313076)
    if they just put the monitor in a curtained-off booth, that'd be enough privacy for me. hell, i have less privacy when i try on pants at the store. like i care if they can see my junk.

    they have the authority to strip search you on nothing more than a hunch - so how different is this really?

    i do remember reading an article talking about this some time back and they were thinking of using a computer generated genderless wireframe and then transfer any hits from the backscatter onto that image, instead of showing the viewer the actual person in the scanner.
    • they have the authority to strip search you on nothing more than a hunch - so how different is this really?

      It's this very attitude of resignation and complacency that feeds the authority machine that breeds more intrusiveness into our lives. We've been sold on the idea that to submit to egregious violations of our person, we are somehow more "patriotic" than someone who has very real issues with this type of technology.

      The fact that some bad apples will press the boundaries of decency is the price one p
  • I think it's just a matter of time until we've got Total Recall style detection for contraband. Which isn't a bad thing. I know I feel a lot safer now than I did before -- the screening procedures have gotten a lot tighter and have improved with the technology.

    The odor-detecting technology is getting pretty good too.

  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by donutz ( 195717 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:11PM (#6313094) Homepage Journal
    I've been waiting for the day to come when I can just walk around naked in public...this machine, with it's ability to render the covering of clothing worthless, is a step in the right direction!
    • I've been waiting for the day to come when I can just walk around naked in public...

      And the rest of us are dreading the day we see you walking around naked in public.

  • Sample Pictures (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alric ( 58756 ) <slashdot&tenhundfeld,org> on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:12PM (#6313098) Homepage Journal
    Here's a link [as-e.com] to a company, AS-E, who manufactures some of the most respected Backscatter equipment.

    For a sample of some slightly frightening pictures check out these images:
    [as-e.com]
    http://www.as-e.com/technology/image_1.html
    If somebody has time, it might be good to provide a mirror for these images.
  • Nice Bombs You Got There...

    Be a shame if sumpin' were to happen to 'em...

    Oh, wait...
  • The real person [cnn.net]. Her problem is that she feels fat [cnn.com].

  • This scares the hell out of me. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jaylen ( 59655 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:14PM (#6313120)
    How long before the police decide to use the mobile version of this technology to start looking inside people's homes and cars?

    Already where I come from (Wales, UK) the local police use helecopters with an infrared camera to fly over houses, searching for high heat output, the reason being it 'aids and assists in catching people growing cannabis in lofts and attics'.

    What is the next step with this technology? It offends me that a government official can soon be able to drive up outside my house, and literally look inside it, to see how many people are in my house, what kinds of material possesions I have, etc etc.

    Saying that, however, I do not think this is going to catch on in airports, especially in the USA :)

    Face it, more than 70% of American middle aged women are going to walk though, just to have the official ask her 'Please could you lift up your sagging stomach fat, so we can see if you have a huge bomb hidden under the rolls of fat'.

    I just wish I was there to see the reactions :)

    ______
    Jaylen

    • I believe the justification behind IR camera is that you're radiating, and they're just picking it up; xray or radar is different, as they're actively 'scanning' you by sending out a signal, then interpreting the results. Therefore, because they are, in some way, breeching your premesis, they're doing a defacto 'search.'

      In other words, if they can hear you're stereo from the street, they can bust you. But they can't point a laser microphone at your window without appropriate warrants.

    • This technology will never be able to see inside your house (unless you live in a tent). The wood/brick/wallboard would require a much higher energy to penetrate. They would have to be penetrated twice, the incident x-rays and the reflected x-rays. If the x-rays had low enough energy to reflect off your stuff, they would not have sufficent energy to pass back through the wall. Now they could put a detector on the opposite side of your house, blast it with high energy x-rays, and image anything - but I th

  • Backscatter shouldnt be a health problem. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Omni Magnus ( 645067 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:14PM (#6313121)
    Since the Xrays bounce OFF of the skin and do not go through it, it shouldn't be a hazard. Also, you are only bombarded for a second or two. Even for frequent flyers, a couple of seconds a week should not hurt anybody.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:15PM (#6313133)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Yet another option (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:16PM (#6313134) Homepage Journal
    Another option would be to restrict the screener to a booth so no passing peepers can see the image, said Randal Null, the agency's chief technology officer.

    Yet another option would be to make the screeners sit naked while at work, thus making embarrassment mutual.

  • This is the end of the line when it comes to privacy violations. This is where I stand up and say, I'm not getting on a fscking plane if someone's going to be sitting in a booth at the security checkpoint looking at me naked. If that's not a terrible invasion of privacy, THEN NOTHING IS.

    What is privacy anyway? Does anyone remember? Anyone?

  • I'll tell you who I feel sorry for.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nemus ( 639101 ) <astarchman@hotmail.com> on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:19PM (#6313168) Journal
    I feel bad for the poor bastard who has to look at everyone of these images as people walk through the terminal. Yeah, you get the occasional hot chick, but more often than not its gonna be Uncle Butch and Aunt Myrtle from East Jesus, AL back from their yearly tropical vacation, where they managed to devour close to two tons of fresh seafood between them...Ugh. Ugh-Ugh......

  • It would be nice if such machines detected the explosives by their electro-magnetic frequency signature or the like instead of human-based image recognition.

    Another approach would be to use automated image recognition. The machine would hilite only suspicious spots, which the guards then inspect further. That way they don't have to see your whole body.

  • "Hiding places" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Andrew Lockhart ( 4470 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:21PM (#6313188) Homepage
    From the example pictures it seems that this still won't be able to detect items that have been put in some of the body's natural "hiding places." I really doubt someone that is willing to die to blow up an airliner full of passengers is going to have any scruples about doing something like that.

    On the other hand, it's also possible to do that when you're just being checked out with metal detectors.
  • Celebrity X-rays start making thier way out to the tabloids?

  • I think I got something here.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH ( 182037 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:22PM (#6313197) Homepage Journal
    I think I'm having a Total Recall [slashdot.org].
  • Isn't he the stretchy guy from the Fantastic Four?

    -72

  • Backscatter Paparazzi celebrity pr0n! (Score:3, Funny)

    by beacher ( 82033 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:25PM (#6313227) Homepage
    You *KNOW* it's only a matter of time before Larry Flynt or the latest celebrity pr0n site manages to get someone hired at LAX. Have someone taping the scanner line in RL, have the backscatter on a second feed, and this is all you need for verification that the backscatter pr0n is legit. Most of the more dubious websites will probably bypass the rl feed and try to pass the images off as celebs.

    I'm not sure about the 3dPoseur look of the images and they don't do anything for me, but I think it'd be interesting to see what kind of person applies for this job.. Voyeurs?

    The name backscatter is completely wrong.. It sounds like a Peter North film andways...

    Another thing - Ever seen Spinal Tap? The airport security gate/cucumber scene comes to mind here....

    B
    FYI: Wired says that the amount of radiation

  • something I found amusing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:26PM (#6313242) Journal
    From Scientific American [sciam.com]:

    "A close second [in the stupid-security contest] was submitted by a guy whose story starts as he is about to board a plane in San Francisco. "The polite inspector informed me that he had to check my shoes for explosives. I dutifully removed them and handed them to him. He picked them up one by one and slammed them down on the floor with full force. Apparently, as they hadn't exploded, they were not dangerous, and he handed them back to me." Perhaps it's best to look on the bright side and simply applaud any public display of the scientific method."

  • This Won't Fly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonym1ty ( 534715 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:27PM (#6313256) Homepage Journal

    There are two reasons why the public will reject this:

    1. No one will want to be seen naked with one of these cameras
    2. The public already irrationally scared enough of irradiated meat, what do you think they are going to think of this? --no matter how safe it may really be

  • Popular Science had an article on this months ago. Then they recently had a followup where a newer version of the system actually somehow eliminated the person's body from the picture; all you (the operator) could see were the guns, etc., superimposed on a generic body.

    Here's the followup:

    http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,125 43,437603,00.html [popsci.com]

    --RJ

  • Organic Camoflauge? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:28PM (#6313268)
    If the backscattered x-rays show organic material like skin as opaque, does that mean a fat suit made of human skin could conceal a good amount of stuff?

    My fear is that this type of technology will make the underpaid, overworked, and barely skilled security workers even more complacent.

    • Sure. All you'd need would be the fat that was suctioned out of Carnie (Yeah, I know she got her stomach stapled, work with me here) which would be more than enough for two people.

      Then you just need a suit that contained enough pocket space to amply wrap yourself in, and put whatever contraband between you & it.

  • They've finally managed to kill air travel (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WinDoze ( 52234 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:30PM (#6313281)
    Last weekend I took a trip to see my new neice. I brought along a few presents. At the last minute, the airline cancelled the flight and put me on a different flight, on a different airline. Fine.

    Only problem is, since I changed flights at the last minute, even though it wasn't my decision, I got the extra-special anal-probe screening, which included, of course, opening all the presents that had JUST PASSED THROUGH AN X-RAY MACHINE. I swore there and then that I was done. If I can't drive there in my car in 8 hours, I don't need to go there. This just cements the deal. This is YOUR GOVERNMENT performing unreasonable random searches on you and interfering with free travel now, friends.

  • It's not new, but it's big and expensive (Score:4, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:31PM (#6313292) Homepage
    Check out this image gallery [as-e.com]. That's a small version of that image; at full scale, you can count the change in the guy's pocket. California prisons have been using these units for several years.

    The AS&E BodySearch unit is huge. It's about 12 feet high, and costs about $1 million. The technology needs a redesign for production. Another generation or two, and it might be widely used. The X-ray exposure is surprisingly low, although well above background, of course.

    In a few years, we might see them in nightclubs.

  • I can see all sorts of messages one can put on their body with reflective paint for all those scanner operators to see.
  • Up until now, x-rays have only been used on luggage and to scan your personal belongings which you put into the tray before you walk through the metal detector. Why? Because x-rays have been proven to be dangerous to living matter at high levels.

    Of course, this doesn't stop them being used in an extremely diluted form, as in regular x-rays at the dentist or the hospital, but you cannot send x-rays more than a metre at these low levels because of spectral bandwidth diminishment issues (730 nanometers of ba

    • Re:Medical implications (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rikkards ( 98006 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @02:16PM (#6313750) Journal
      Why? Because x-rays have been proven to be dangerous to living matter at high levels.

      No, this way they don't waste time having you walk through the metal detector multiple times as you remove objects from your person. Plus they can check and make sure nothing is being smuggled in with your objects that could be considered banned (explosives, shivs, handmade guns, etc)

      Rant On

      Personally I think people need to get over the whole "they will see you naked bit" whoopdedoo, I have a penis so does 49%+/-1% of the population.
      Sure it is an invasion of privacy but if you want to get somewhere fast, concessions should be made.

      Rant Off
  • This is the wrong battle.

    The danger to planes is going to be shoulder launched missiles from near airports. (Few planes are going to be highjacked now without a HELL of a fight, no matter what weapons the bad guys have, and explosives...well, who knows if they'll be identifiable even with a great view)

    And the danger to the nation is in PORTS people...those thousands of semi-anonymous crates coming in ever day, with almost no inspection what so ever. That's how a little baby nuke would get into this natio
    • And the danger to the nation is in PORTS people...those thousands of semi-anonymous crates coming in ever day, with almost no inspection what so ever. That's how a little baby nuke would get into this nation, and Bush and Ridge are doing very little about it. (There was some good coverage of some technological helps to this problem in)

      There was also a movie about this. I can't remember the name but it had Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman in it.

      Someone smuggled a nuke into the US via a port, hid it in a cok

  • The agency hopes to modify the machines with an electronic fig leaf -- programming that fuzzes out sensitive body parts or distorts the body so it does not appear so, well, graphic.

    I sure hope the machine will be able to distinguish between silicone breast implants and bags of astrolite.

    For every technological approach to anti-terrorism and security, the determined will always find a means around it.

    Treating the symptoms of terrorism and not the cause will only erode the rights of the innocent and hast

  • Wait a sec... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:36PM (#6313350) Homepage
    How do we actually know whether we are being Xrayed in this way anyway?

    ;-(

  • ...when there's a handheld version for sale.
  • So does bring new meaning to Airport Extreme [apple.com]? Will I now have to worry that every time I walk past a Mac user, I'm about to appear on some Internet site in my birthday suit?

  • travel naked like the Terminator (Score:3, Interesting)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @01:41PM (#6313407)
    In the terminator series- soon to be expanded to its fourth installment- time travel only works on naked bodies. I am amused to think that we may have to esort to this for ultimate security.

    Even so, when you read about smuggling in prisons and elsewhere, there's alot you can hide inside a body.
  • Group of feminists: "Thats degrading to women!".
  • Is where all baggage is checked, and passengers, flight attendants, and pilots must fly entirely in the buff. Call it "bare skin" airlines. The only remaining problem would be that of beligerent naked kung-fu masters on board.

  • why not subtract the bodies? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pz ( 113803 ) on Friday June 27, 2003 @02:09PM (#6313673) Journal
    [scientific-musing]

    The hullabaloo over this and similar devices is that they render the person under inspection apparently naked. This is an understandable objection. It seems, to my naive viewpoint, it would not be so difficult to computationally manipulate the image to remove the body, and leave everything else. After all, airport security (TSA in the US) is supposed to only care about things that are not the body. I've seen MRI scans which have been manipulated to, eg, peel the skull away from the brain, so I cannot imagine that it would be difficult to remove the pseudo-naked body from the data before they are displayed.

    [/scientific-musing]

    [privacy-rant]

    I hate the idea of these and similar technologies which allow semi-secret observation of the populace without court order. Forget the tinfoil hat, you'll have to wrap your entire body in foil now!

    [/privacy-rant]

  • does an anonymous person need modesty? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1@NoSpaM.hotmail.com> on Friday June 27, 2003 @03:46PM (#6314636)
    So it seems to me that the main thing that makes people modest, eg. not stripping naked and running around campus, is the fact that people will know it was you and you have to talk to them afterwards. The same is probably true of this machine, ie. people assume that the operator would see you before and after you walk through, and you might feel embarassed about beeing seen that way.

    But just suppose for a second, that the operator of the x-ray vision machine is in a totally isolated room, and sees only the image of the person walking through the machine with no face shown, and doesn't get to see the person before or after. Wouldn't this eliminate the privacy problem? After all, if no one knows who you were individually walking through the machine, how are you to feel violated?

    I personally would be ok with that kind of setup. Would you?

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close